Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Why does America listen to Jenny McCarthy and Suzanne Somers' scientific opinions instead of, you know, the opinions of scientists?   (salon.com) divider line 171
    More: Sad, Jenny McCarty, Mary Steenburgen, Dr. Oz, outbreaks, Jenny McCarthy, causes of autism, traditional medicine, fuddyduddies  
•       •       •

6496 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Oct 2013 at 10:22 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



171 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-29 08:36:15 PM  
Because of Boobies?

(No Fark filters were tripped in the making of this post)
 
2013-10-29 08:41:15 PM  
Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.
 
2013-10-29 08:47:20 PM  
Do you mean "America", subby, or do you mean "low information easily entertained short attention span losers"?
 
2013-10-29 08:52:43 PM  
Because everyone knows science is based on fact. And facts have a liberal bias.
 
2013-10-29 08:55:51 PM  
America: 237 years of progress powered by gut instincts unimpeded by facts
 
2013-10-29 08:56:39 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Do you mean "America", subby, or do you mean "low information easily entertained short attention span losers"?


I think he means "women"

/runs from thread
 
2013-10-29 09:01:05 PM  
Unconsciously we associate success with expertise. Not just expertise in their specific field, but general expertise across all fields.

Suzanne Sommers and Jenny McCarthy are successful, therefore they must be experts.

This is all unconscious, of course. As soon as you think about it you realize that's crazy talk.
 
2013-10-29 09:04:01 PM  
Just because these broads are guests of the morning squawking hen shows doesn't mean "America is listening to them".
 
2013-10-29 09:16:50 PM  
Because they are far more entertaining than real scientists.

No, really, thats why
 
2013-10-29 09:17:49 PM  
Because it makes them feel good to know that they aren't stupid (even if they are).
 
2013-10-29 09:22:37 PM  

kronicfeld: Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.


Neil Degrasse-Tyson does.
 
2013-10-29 09:31:12 PM  
Why do politicians alter or suppress scientists findings they do not like?

/money.....
 
2013-10-29 09:31:54 PM  

cman: Because they are far more entertaining than real scientists.

No, really, thats why


Maybe in 1994 and 1977 respectively.
 
2013-10-29 09:37:37 PM  
Many years ago, a good friend of mine and I tried to come up with the Rules of Life. This is the list in its entirety:

Rule #1: People... are stupid.


.
/Every attempt to come up with a subsequent Rule turned out to be a variant of Rule #1.
 
2013-10-29 09:40:39 PM  
I hear more ridicule of Jenny McCarthy than I do if people agreeing with her.
 
2013-10-29 09:42:05 PM  

Mugato: cman: Because they are far more entertaining than real scientists.

No, really, thats why

Maybe in 1994 and 1977 respectively.


No, still entertaining today

How many people are commenting on this?

A lot.

Dumb people making dumb statements are always entertaining

Me, for instance, I am a comedic genius considering that I am a dumbfark who says really dumb things
 
2013-10-29 09:49:03 PM  

Nabb1: I hear more ridicule of Jenny McCarthy than I do if people agreeing with her.


There might be a reason for this.
 
2013-10-29 09:51:23 PM  

Krieghund: Unconsciously we associate success with expertise. Not just expertise in their specific field, but general expertise across all fields.

Suzanne Sommers and Jenny McCarthy are successful, therefore they must be experts.

This is all unconscious, of course. As soon as you think about it you realize that's crazy talk.


Both successes happened, to a large extent, by posing nude for Playboy. Is there a College of Playboy Bunnies that have been hidden from academia?
 
2013-10-29 09:59:06 PM  
i1182.photobucket.com
 
2013-10-29 10:06:03 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Do you mean "America", subby, or do you mean "low information easily entertained short attention span losers"?


I'm not sure why you repeat yourself.

/seriously, though, that's a pretty large market you're talking about.  Honey Boo Boo's show gets those ratings somewhere.
 
2013-10-29 10:14:01 PM  
There's nothing wrong with Suzanne Somers' opinions. The problem is people just heard part of what she had to say and took it out of context. It's all a giant misunderstanding.
 
2013-10-29 10:16:07 PM  
Because people are dumb.

Because people don't like to think that scientists are smarter or, let's say more knowledgeable about certain topics, than they are, and that their 'common sense', like what Susanne Somers and Jenny McCartney sell, is just as good, if not better.
 
2013-10-29 10:17:01 PM  

MayoSlather: There's nothing wrong with Suzanne Somers' opinions. The problem is people just heard part of what she had to say and took it out of context. It's all a giant misunderstanding.


Excellent troll.  You should get some bites.
 
2013-10-29 10:18:07 PM  
Because they are farking retarded.

And the media doesn't realize that it should be more involved in regulating opinion.
 
2013-10-29 10:25:11 PM  
commoditization of gossip
 
2013-10-29 10:27:39 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: And the media doesn't realize that it should be more involved in regulating opinion.


I'm not sure how they could possibly regulate it more. What you might mean is the police should be more involved in regulating opinion.
 
2013-10-29 10:28:09 PM  
Published does not equal "listened to."

 
2013-10-29 10:30:10 PM  
Which group is on TV? Scientists or TV hosts?

Well there you go.
 
2013-10-29 10:31:02 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: America: 237 years of progress powered by gut instincts unimpeded by facts


Hey, 237 is my lucky number!
 
2013-10-29 10:32:12 PM  

SilentStrider: kronicfeld: Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.

Neil Degrasse-Tyson does.


That douchebag is the Jenny McCarthy of science. The answer is because housewives are bored and stupid. Ever look at Facebook in the middle is the day? Page after page of nonsense from idiot housewives
 
2013-10-29 10:33:29 PM  
Most scientists are pretty terrible at PR.  They worry more about the science.
 
2013-10-29 10:33:32 PM  
I don't know anyone who doesn't think she's full of it.
 
2013-10-29 10:37:11 PM  
Because people have been listening to pretty women say stupid shiat since the beginning of time...
 
2013-10-29 10:40:10 PM  

BKITU: Many years ago, a good friend of mine and I tried to come up with the Rules of Life. This is the list in its entirety:Rule #1: People... are stupid.
.
/Every attempt to come up with a subsequent Rule turned out to be a variant of Rule #1.


You and I have the same friend, except it was refer to as a Law.
 
2013-10-29 10:40:29 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: That douchebag is the Jenny McCarthy of science. The answer is because housewives are bored and stupid. Ever look at Facebook in the middle is the day? Page after page of nonsense from idiot housewives


You are just SOOOO above average!

/swoon
 
2013-10-29 10:41:22 PM  
Because they can more easily relate to stupid people?

/DNRTFA
 
2013-10-29 10:41:39 PM  
TITS!
 
2013-10-29 10:42:34 PM  
America? I be at least 9/10 Americans think these people are full of shiat or don't even know who they are.
 
2013-10-29 10:42:36 PM  
Because Americans are retarded.
 
2013-10-29 10:43:47 PM  
You know, the subject of misplaced authority is an intriguing one with some interesting scientific questions. Too bad the article comes from Salon.com, so instead, we get some libtard biatching about how loud the people are that he disagrees with. But then again, a lot of people go to Salon.com, and it's a pretty website, so maybe I should trust it...
 
2013-10-29 10:47:00 PM  
You mean the scientists who tell me one week something is bad for me, then the next week tell me the same thing is now good for me?
 
2013-10-29 10:47:28 PM  
Because....

a0.twimg.com
oi41.tinypic.com

That's why.
 
2013-10-29 10:50:39 PM  

SilentStrider: kronicfeld: Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.

Neil Degrasse-Tyson does.


I wouldn't ask him how to improve the appearance of my thighs...or would i?
 
2013-10-29 10:52:17 PM  
Same reason global warming deniers listen to politicians and corporate shills instead of scientists, and creationists believe a fairy tale over science. Stupidity.
 
2013-10-29 10:57:02 PM  

blue_2501: Because....

[a0.twimg.com image 500x500]
[oi41.tinypic.com image 550x550]

That's why.


Sadly those images really do say it all.
 
2013-10-29 10:57:17 PM  
because in a population of 320M, the population pool of retards is statistically significant.
 
2013-10-29 10:57:23 PM  
Because half of all Americans are of below average intelligence?
 
2013-10-29 11:05:37 PM  
buttonpushingmonkey.files.wordpress.com
Because to them, scientists talk like f@gs.
 
2013-10-29 11:10:54 PM  

BKITU: Many years ago, a good friend of mine and I tried to come up with the Rules of Life. This is the list in its entirety:Rule #1: People... are stupid.
.
/Every attempt to come up with a subsequent Rule turned out to be a variant of Rule #1.


You really should stop plagarizing Wizard's First Rule
 
2013-10-29 11:16:44 PM  
Scientist scary scary to most people because they speak in terms that most people can't understand or think that they can't understand because they shut off their brains once somebody is introduced as a scientist.

Bubbly giggly blonde big tittied talk show host don't have that problem.
 
2013-10-29 11:23:11 PM  

Harry_Seldon: SilentStrider: kronicfeld: Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.

Neil Degrasse-Tyson does.

I wouldn't ask him how to improve the appearance of my thighs...or would i?


I would feel more comfortable taking fitness advice from Neil Degrasse-Tyson than I would be taking medical advice from Jenny McCarthy.
 
2013-10-29 11:25:33 PM  
The people I know who believe in things such as these also believe that the government is injecting the poor with diseases, the president and congress control gas prices, drug companies are causing the illnesses that they treat, and frequently use the phrase "wake up, sheeple."

These are not people that I spend any significant amount of time trying to figure out.
 
2013-10-29 11:27:41 PM  

Mugato: Just because these broads are guests of the morning squawking hen shows doesn't mean "America is listening to them".


Yeah, this is a false premise.  The real question is 'why does the media give has-been actors time to voice their uneducated opinions about snake oil?'  And the answer is 'because the actors are desperate and need attention and money and snake oil sellers dig finding rubes who think the nice stupid lady from Three's Company has the inside track about science.'
 
2013-10-29 11:32:55 PM  

ongbok: Scientist scary scary to most people because they speak in terms that most people can't understand or think that they can't understand because they shut off their brains once somebody is introduced as a scientist.


This.

farm8.staticflickr.com

"I wonder what his opinion is of a topic in field he has little to no knowledge of or experience in...."


farm4.staticflickr.com

"AAAAUUUGHHH!!"
 
2013-10-29 11:33:43 PM  

Guntram Shatterhand: Mugato: Just because these broads are guests of the morning squawking hen shows doesn't mean "America is listening to them".

Yeah, this is a false premise.  The real question is 'why does the media give has-been actors time to voice their uneducated opinions about snake oil?'  And the answer is 'because the actors are desperate and need attention and money and snake oil sellers dig finding rubes who think the nice stupid lady from Three's Company has the inside track about science.'


Here's an interesting thought... what if someone successfully sues a media outlet who keeps letting these idiots push thoroughly-debunked nonsense?
 
2013-10-29 11:35:10 PM  
Most Americans are stupid, and could no blow their noses if brains were dynamite.
 
2013-10-29 11:35:32 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: SilentStrider: kronicfeld: Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.

Neil Degrasse-Tyson does.

That douchebag is the Jenny McCarthy of science.


I'm hoping that English isn't your first language here, because if you mean what you wrote, you should definitely consider posting less.

// I'd also hope that you don't vote.
// While we're at it, please also consider cutting your Internet service.
 
2013-10-29 11:38:23 PM  

IntertubeUser: Contrabulous Flabtraption: SilentStrider: kronicfeld: Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.

Neil Degrasse-Tyson does.

That douchebag is the Jenny McCarthy of science.

I'm hoping that English isn't your first language here, because if you mean what you wrote, you should definitely consider posting less.

// I'd also hope that you don't vote.
// While we're at it, please also consider cutting your Internet serviceself.


/ft
 
2013-10-29 11:38:41 PM  

clkeagle: Guntram Shatterhand: Mugato: Just because these broads are guests of the morning squawking hen shows doesn't mean "America is listening to them".

Yeah, this is a false premise.  The real question is 'why does the media give has-been actors time to voice their uneducated opinions about snake oil?'  And the answer is 'because the actors are desperate and need attention and money and snake oil sellers dig finding rubes who think the nice stupid lady from Three's Company has the inside track about science.'

Here's an interesting thought... what if someone successfully sues a media outlet who keeps letting these idiots push thoroughly-debunked nonsense?


...someone already tried that with Fox News.  And lost.
 
2013-10-29 11:40:00 PM  
Why do people believe in snake oil?  Because they want snake oil to work, it is something real and tangible right here right now that I can acquire with minimal effort.

Because I want these things to be true, I therefore force myself to believe those things to be true.

People have an incredible aversion to being wrong about anything at anytime once they've settled on what right is.  (Partially because the first thing they expect to happen when they admit they were wrong is everyone and their uncle come and spike the football in their face and do a touchdown dance and call them stupid for every believing X in this first place, but that idea gets internalized so they have their own version of themselves prepared to do such if nobody does it to them.)

It's not just an American thing, it's a human thing.  We prefer to believe that we know best in all matters, and also like to think that each of us has our own special circumstance that makes the normal rules not apply to us, because dealing with the fact that most of us are relatively mundane and uninteresting is something of a terrifying thought.
 
2013-10-29 11:43:14 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Do you mean "America", subby, or do you mean "low information easily entertained short attention span losers"?


Yes.

/not subby, just presuming to speak on his/her behalf
 
2013-10-29 11:47:34 PM  
"We're in trouble as a species if people refuse to believe in things they couldn't actually do themselves."  --David MItchell
 
2013-10-29 11:53:01 PM  
Their answers are simple and easy to understand. It is a shame they are also horribly wrong.
 
2013-10-29 11:54:17 PM  

pueblonative: BKITU: Many years ago, a good friend of mine and I tried to come up with the Rules of Life. This is the list in its entirety:Rule #1: People... are stupid.
.
/Every attempt to come up with a subsequent Rule turned out to be a variant of Rule #1.

You really should stop plagarizing Wizard's First Rule


*checks Wikipedia*

Nope, we had it first. We should sue Goodkind for plagiarism instead.

/Maybe he overheard us at an early-90s ComicCon.
 
2013-10-29 11:55:12 PM  

HawgWild: Because everyone knows science is based on fact. And facts have a liberal bias.


I think in the case of this article, people believe facts have a Big Pharma bias. People distrust medical science because they believe they're in the pocket of the people that try to sell you pills for anything and everything.

Score another one for the American healthcare system.
 
2013-10-29 11:56:31 PM  

jonny_q: You know, the subject of misplaced authority is an intriguing one with some interesting scientific questions. Too bad the article comes from Salon.com, so instead, we get some libtard biatching about how loud the people are that he disagrees with. But then again, a lot of people go to Salon.com, and it's a pretty website, so maybe I should trust it...


No. No, it's not. It's one of the ugliest sites I have ever seen. I don't even click on Salon links because their website is so ugly.
 
2013-10-29 11:59:45 PM  
Well, I don't listen to the medical opinions of Suzanne Somers and Jenny McCarthy, but I don't think U.S. scientists are without agendas either. They have motivations, are biased, have political interests, have egos, get plied by the pharmaceutical companies, all of which can play when forming their opinions. Hell, I just read an article that criticized a farking ob/gyn because he told women it's okay if you pee during exercise. So, no, I don't believe necessarily believe anything anyone tells me at first light, doesn't matter if you're a 20-yr expert in your field or a dumbass off the street. You could be wrong. I'll form my opinions once I've done my own reading and research. Most of the time, people are just too lazy to do their own research (me too).

Also, regardless of field, experience, or education, generally the people who try the hardest to convince you that they are right are the ones who have the most at stake if found to be wrong. The more someone tries to convince me, the more suspicious I get.
 
2013-10-30 12:01:50 AM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: SilentStrider: kronicfeld: Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.

Neil Degrasse-Tyson does.

That douchebag is the Jenny McCarthy of science.


Your hated of Tyson is well documented here, but thanks for reminding folks. Now tell us how you feel about Anthony Bourdain.
 
2013-10-30 12:02:34 AM  

jonny_q: libtard


DRINK!
 
2013-10-30 12:04:43 AM  

Peki: Well, I don't listen to the medical opinions of Suzanne Somers and Jenny McCarthy, but I don't think U.S. scientists are without agendas either. They have motivations, are biased, have political interests, have egos, get plied by the pharmaceutical companies, all of which can play when forming their opinions. Hell, I just read an article that criticized a farking ob/gyn because he told women it's okay if you pee during exercise. So, no, I don't believe necessarily believe anything anyone tells me at first light, doesn't matter if you're a 20-yr expert in your field or a dumbass off the street. You could be wrong. I'll form my opinions once I've done my own reading and research. Most of the time, people are just too lazy to do their own research (me too).

Also, regardless of field, experience, or education, generally the people who try the hardest to convince you that they are right are the ones who have the most at stake if found to be wrong. The more someone tries to convince me, the more suspicious I get.


So... both sides are bad so vote bimbo?

Yeah, let me know when Somers or McCarthy are published in a peer-reviewed journal.
 
2013-10-30 12:06:07 AM  
www.voght.org
 
2013-10-30 12:07:25 AM  
I'm surprised no one mentioned this gem:
"As shown on "Oprah," Somers takes 60 pills a day, as well as injecting hormones into her vagina and rubbing them into her skin."
 
2013-10-30 12:08:46 AM  

BKITU: Many years ago, a good friend of mine and I tried to come up with the Rules of Life. This is the list in its entirety:Rule #1: People... are stupid.
.
/Every attempt to come up with a subsequent Rule turned out to be a variant of Rule #1.



You know how stupid the average person is? Well half of them are dumber than THAT.
 
2013-10-30 12:10:21 AM  
img.fark.net

I dunno. You really can't trust the rain to get all the blood off, and dried blood is pretty obvious even on a red car.
 
2013-10-30 12:13:31 AM  
NEVER underestimate the power of human stupidity. It's the oldest and ultimate technology, and for every good idea there were thousands of bad ones that got drove into the ground.
 
2013-10-30 12:14:42 AM  
 
2013-10-30 12:15:39 AM  

epyonyx: TITS


Came here to say this.  Leaving happy.
 
2013-10-30 12:16:19 AM  
Come on people, Sommers is a thigh master, not a thigh amateur. Sheesh.
 
2013-10-30 12:17:28 AM  

Peki: Well, I don't listen to the medical opinions of Suzanne Somers and Jenny McCarthy, but I don't think U.S. scientists are without agendas either. They have motivations, are biased, have political interests, have egos, get plied by the pharmaceutical companies, all of which can play when forming their opinions. Hell, I just read an article that criticized a farking ob/gyn because he told women it's okay if you pee during exercise. So, no, I don't believe necessarily believe anything anyone tells me at first light, doesn't matter if you're a 20-yr expert in your field or a dumbass off the street. You could be wrong. I'll form my opinions once I've done my own reading and research. Most of the time, people are just too lazy to do their own research (me too).

Also, regardless of field, experience, or education, generally the people who try the hardest to convince you that they are right are the ones who have the most at stake if found to be wrong. The more someone tries to convince me, the more suspicious I get.


Yes, scientists are human, but you know who else is human? You are. You also have subconcious motivations that aren't entirely rational, so remember that next time you are feeling "suspicious."
 
2013-10-30 12:21:18 AM  

clkeagle: Harry_Seldon: SilentStrider: kronicfeld: Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.

Neil Degrasse-Tyson does.

I wouldn't ask him how to improve the appearance of my thighs...or would i?

I would feel more comfortable taking fitness advice from Neil Degrasse-Tyson than I would be taking medical advice from Jenny McCarthy.


And isn't it illegal to give medical advice to people if you're not a doctor?  I remember hearing that a while ago and then google confirmed it was.  It was a few years back though.
 
2013-10-30 12:26:34 AM  
Because a lot of us are celebrity worshipping dolts?
 
2013-10-30 12:26:59 AM  

fusillade762: So... both sides are bad so vote bimbo?


HA! Not politically!

Science-wise? Well. What's your definition of science? You wait five minutes and suddenly "science" has a new opinion on whether or not coffee is good for you (peer reviewed or not). So if "science" can't make up its mind on coffee, how does the general public know to trust it on vaccines? Especially when you can go through history and see time and time again where science says, "This is GREAT!" and a handful of years later we're all, "oops our bad." Doesn't inspire trust, and trust is something science in the U.S. does not have. I don't take this to an extreme; I've never been a climate change denier. Just wary is all.

Americans are too lazy to do their own research, and the word science gets thrown around too much.
 
2013-10-30 12:28:37 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Do you mean "America", subby, or do you mean "low information easily entertained short attention span losers"?


Weird. Why would you follow up a word with a slightly different phrasing of the same word?


I swear that when I was growing up we were still taught to respect knowledge and expertise. I am only 33 but it seems like so much has changed. Perhaps the idiots simply found their champions.
 
2013-10-30 12:28:45 AM  

LoneWolf343: Yes, scientists are human, but you know who else is human? You are. You also have subconcious motivations that aren't entirely rational, so remember that next time you are feeling "suspicious."


Yup. Difference is I don't have a job on the line to protect.
 
2013-10-30 12:30:19 AM  
Let's imagine that the apocalypse has arrived and you have to choose whether to fark for eternity, or
 
2013-10-30 12:35:02 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Do you mean "America", subby, or do you mean "low information easily entertained short attention span losers"?


Same thing.
 
2013-10-30 12:37:08 AM  

Peki: Well, I don't listen to the medical opinions of Suzanne Somers and Jenny McCarthy, but I don't think U.S. scientists are without agendas either. They have motivations, are biased, have political interests, have egos, get plied by the pharmaceutical companies, all of which can play when forming their opinions. Hell, I just read an article that criticized a farking ob/gyn because he told women it's okay if you pee during exercise. So, no, I don't believe necessarily believe anything anyone tells me at first light, doesn't matter if you're a 20-yr expert in your field or a dumbass off the street. You could be wrong. I'll form my opinions once I've done my own reading and research. Most of the time, people are just too lazy to do their own research (me too).

Also, regardless of field, experience, or education, generally the people who try the hardest to convince you that they are right are the ones who have the most at stake if found to be wrong. The more someone tries to convince me, the more suspicious I get.


I think it matters somewhat.
 
2013-10-30 12:37:16 AM  
The cynical answer is "professional scientists are skilled at science.  Professional attention whores are skilled at whoring for attention."

The accurate answer is "America generally  doesn't listen to these morons as a rule, the thousand or so exceptions just write a lot of angry letters.  Since normal people have to drink a pint of everclear and take a club to their head a few dozen times to even conceive of the level of stupid required to seriously consider this kind of idiocy, they do not write many angry letters about it."

Silent majority, basically, though the silence is more a general eye-rolling inability to accept that anyone would take something so obviously insane seriously than the usual real indifference.

Phil Clinton: And isn't it illegal to give medical advice to people if you're not a doctor?  I remember hearing that a while ago and then google confirmed it was.  It was a few years back though.


On an individual level, yes.  Generally advocating that fluoride in the water allows the aliens to mind-control us isn't the same thing as presenting yourself as a credentialed authority and advising individuals to stop drinking water on the strength of that false authority.

Basically if you admit you aren't a medical professional, and bother large groups of people instead of giving one-on-one consultations, the professional credentialing restrictions don't apply.
 
2013-10-30 12:39:35 AM  
I wonder how many people these woman have been the primary cause of death for
 
2013-10-30 12:44:25 AM  

Harry_Seldon: I wouldn't ask him how to improve the appearance of my thighs...or would i?


now.uiowa.edu

He actually knows a bit about that

/yes that's him
 
2013-10-30 12:45:43 AM  

clkeagle: Harry_Seldon: SilentStrider: kronicfeld: Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.

Neil Degrasse-Tyson does.

I wouldn't ask him how to improve the appearance of my thighs...or would i?

I would feel more comfortable taking fitness advice from Neil Degrasse-Tyson than I would be taking medical advice from Jenny McCarthy.


Man was captain of his wrestling team in high school, he might know a thing or two about keeping fit.
 
2013-10-30 12:46:32 AM  

Peki: fusillade762: So... both sides are bad so vote bimbo?

HA! Not politically!

Science-wise? Well. What's your definition of science? You wait five minutes and suddenly "science" has a new opinion on whether or not coffee is good for you (peer reviewed or not). So if "science" can't make up its mind on coffee, how does the general public know to trust it on vaccines? Especially when you can go through history and see time and time again where science says, "This is GREAT!" and a handful of years later we're all, "oops our bad." Doesn't inspire trust, and trust is something science in the U.S. does not have. I don't take this to an extreme; I've never been a climate change denier. Just wary is all.

Americans are too lazy to do their own research, and the word science gets thrown around too much.


"Science" says no such thing.  Media outlets trying to make a quick buck off "science" says that.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-30 12:51:10 AM  
We want to hear what goes along with what we've been taught, rather than what' scientifically true.  Convincing even scientists what is scientifically true takes decades and leads to much screaming before the Truth sinks in.
 
2013-10-30 01:01:31 AM  
Money.

I mean, I don't listen to them, and seriously have trouble dealing with people that do.

I have to walk away because the stupid is that painful.
 
2013-10-30 01:07:29 AM  

Mugato: Just because these broads are guests of the morning squawking hen shows doesn't mean "America is listening to them".


This.
 
2013-10-30 01:14:03 AM  
I have an easy method to help remedy this, but it will take a few generations, and some concerted effort on all our parts, and that it is voiced by John Waters, should give it the weight that a celebrity crazed public can understand:

'If you go home with somebody, and they don't have books, don't f*ck 'em!'

Seriously, folks. You have the power. Ladies, that goes double for y'all.
 
2013-10-30 01:29:50 AM  
My theory: There's an emotional nerve among the middle class that reacts to suburban disillusionment with a feeling that the modern world is indescribably flawed. Lacking a concrete frame of historical reference, they adopt the mantra that 'primitive lifestyle = healthier' and apply it to whatever the hell the leprechuans and ascendant humours in their brains tell them to do.

Raw food, barefoot running, anti-vaccination, Scientology... you never see these fads in poor ghettos. It's always bored bourgeois soccer moms and yuppies being deliberately antique and health-superstitious.
 
2013-10-30 01:31:50 AM  

ongbok: Scientist scary scary to most people because they speak in terms that most people can't understand or think that they can't understand because they shut off their brains once somebody is introduced as a scientist.

Bubbly giggly blonde big tittied talk show host don't have that problem.



I'm pretty sure my brain would shut off almost immediately if I was introduced to a bubbly giggly blonde big tittied talk show host. My little head's brain is not the best replacement there, and doesn't understand or care about science either.
 
2013-10-30 01:39:16 AM  
And yet science sounding bullshiat still sounds more believable in a lab coat.
 
2013-10-30 01:49:07 AM  

Peki: fusillade762: So... both sides are bad so vote bimbo?

HA! Not politically!

Science-wise? Well. What's your definition of science? You wait five minutes and suddenly "science" has a new opinion on whether or not coffee is good for you (peer reviewed or not). So if "science" can't make up its mind on coffee, how does the general public know to trust it on vaccines? Especially when you can go through history and see time and time again where science says, "This is GREAT!" and a handful of years later we're all, "oops our bad." Doesn't inspire trust, and trust is something science in the U.S. does not have. I don't take this to an extreme; I've never been a climate change denier. Just wary is all.

Americans are too lazy to do their own research, and the word science gets thrown around too much.


You do know that "science" isn't just one guy in a lab somewhere that changes his mind a lot, right?
 
2013-10-30 02:00:26 AM  
Probably because of the same reason that she convinced me that mustard on a hot dog is awesome.
guymeetsworld.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-10-30 02:07:56 AM  
America doesn't.

Retards do.
 
2013-10-30 02:12:13 AM  

SilentStrider: Man was captain of his wrestling team in high school, he might know a thing or two about keeping fit.


And he wrestled in college too
 
2013-10-30 02:32:06 AM  

hubiestubert: I have an easy method to help remedy this, but it will take a few generations, and some concerted effort on all our parts, and that it is voiced by John Waters, should give it the weight that a celebrity crazed public can understand:

'If you go home with somebody, and they don't have books, don't f*ck 'em!'

Seriously, folks. You have the power. Ladies, that goes double for y'all.


It's an outdated idea... I don't have many paper books left. I don't have room for them, and I've converted to digital in the past few years...  So my bookshelf isn't exactly visible to visitors.

Meanwhile, speaking as a former bookseller, I am absolutely certain that many people buy books with no intention of ever reading them; They are, instead, part of the decor. Every time Oprah endorsed a book we sold a ton of them, and from conversing with my customers I can tell you that maybe 20% of the books sold were ever cracked open. The rest were coffee table decor, or placed in a bookshelf to make people think the homeowner was well-informed and up on the latest trends.

We had people who would come in and buy several best-sellers each month, and in later encounters with them it was clear they never read the books they bought; They were just for show.

So the entire practice of judging a person with a large library or bookshelf as "intellectual" is flawed from the beginning. OWNING books doesn't necessarily prove you actually READ books, and a lack of visible books does not indicate that someone is a non-reader.
 
2013-10-30 02:35:09 AM  

Mad_Radhu: [img.fark.net image 425x355]

I dunno. You really can't trust the rain to get all the blood off, and dried blood is pretty obvious even on a red car.


It is my opinion that he's not spraying water on the car, but vacuuming it off the car.
 
2013-10-30 03:01:59 AM  

Peki: fusillade762: So... both sides are bad so vote bimbo?

HA! Not politically!

Science-wise? Well. What's your definition of science? You wait five minutes and suddenly "science" has a new opinion on whether or not coffee is good for you (peer reviewed or not). So if "science" can't make up its mind on coffee, how does the general public know to trust it on vaccines? Especially when you can go through history and see time and time again where science says, "This is GREAT!" and a handful of years later we're all, "oops our bad." Doesn't inspire trust, and trust is something science in the U.S. does not have. I don't take this to an extreme; I've never been a climate change denier. Just wary is all.

Americans are too lazy to do their own research, and the word science gets thrown around too much.


There's so much wrong ...where to start?

Your first problem is getting science from popular media. Second problem is lack of education on science topics, and what good scientific design is.

Third problem, believing medicine and epidemiology are certain sciences that will not deliver conflicting messages from different studies on complex questions. That you complain about this is really pointing out the first two problems.
 
2013-10-30 03:43:51 AM  
imageshack.us
 
2013-10-30 04:11:31 AM  

RatMaster999: America doesn't.

Retards do.


False dichotomy.
 
2013-10-30 04:26:49 AM  

Krieghund: Unconsciously we associate success with expertise. Not just expertise in their specific field, but general expertise across all fields.


I find it to be a generation thing.  My inlaws who are in their 60's - 70's will innately trust any sort of person who appears on the TV.  By their thinking if the person wasn't an expert in the matter they wouldn't be on the TV, thus anyone who appears on TV is an expert.   Same for Doctors (they never lie, never get things wrong, are never too lazy to do a proper check up, etc.) and people in positions of power (police, politicians, their bank manager, etc.) all experts and all completely trustworthy.   This is a fairly common attitude amongst this age group and older.

I'm in my 30's and trust noone until they've proven themselves trustworthy; same for respect it's earned not blindly given.  Which seems to be the common attitude for people around my age and younger.

So somewhere, both here and on your side of the Atlantic something happened in those 30 years to cause a massive change in attitude towards things.

ongbok: Scientist scary scary to most people because they speak in terms that most people can't understand or think that they can't understand because they shut off their brains once somebody is introduced as a scientist.

Bubbly giggly blonde big tittied talk show host don't have that problem.


Yep or when on the show they're instructed to dumb it down so far that instead of describing an experiment to detect Gravitons they could be describing a mince pie... it's so vague you might as well of got the blonde kitten killer in.
 
2013-10-30 04:30:10 AM  
Anne.Uumellmahaye: and frequently use the phrase "wake up, sheeple."

I wish the sheeple would wake up.  Although that's probably being unkind to sheep, lets call such people starfish instead; an organism that has no brain and eats with its asshole.   Because you've got to be fairly dumb to believe the sort of crap being spouted.
 
2013-10-30 04:33:23 AM  

jonny_q: BKITU: Many years ago, a good friend of mine and I tried to come up with the Rules of Life. This is the list in its entirety:Rule #1: People... are stupid.
.
/Every attempt to come up with a subsequent Rule turned out to be a variant of Rule #1.

You and I have the same friend, except it was refer to as a Law.


Also known as Wizards First Rule.
 
2013-10-30 04:38:49 AM  

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: Your first problem is getting science from popular media. Second problem is lack of education on science topics, and what good scientific design is.


It is possible to get good science information from mass media. It's a matter of knowing where to look and having the critical thinking skills to separate fact from bollocks and being able to identify the sources of both.

Sadly this is all too rare, and part of it seems to be that people will trust a name they recognise simply because it is familiar or because they heard that first and let confirmation bias settle in. I've had people spout complete and utter shiate to me claiming it was fact because they "read it in an article." Then can't tell me what the article was, where it was published, who wrote it, what purpose the writer had, what sources were used or what further research on that subject would reveal. Because they never thought to ask.

Now on the subject of quality science in media, I definitely recommend The Infinite Monkey Cage on BBC Radio 4.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/timc

It's a mix of comedy and science discussion with hosts and panellists from both backgrounds. There's a fair bit of speculation and opinion mixed in with the solid facts but they are always certain to explain which is which. It's also a great example of why I love Radio 4 so much. Because it is that rare or possibly unique entity amongst mass media outlets, one that is entirely unafraid to be intelligent and educated, and to expect the same from its audience.
 
2013-10-30 04:46:32 AM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: SilentStrider: kronicfeld: Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.

Neil Degrasse-Tyson does.

That douchebag is the Jenny McCarthy of science.


Why the NDT hate?

I'm kinda getting a QA vibe here ...
 
2013-10-30 04:48:05 AM  
Gordon Bennett:   It's a matter of knowing where to look and having the critical thinking skills to separate fact from bollocks and being able to identify the sources of both.

..and avoiding confirmation bias.
 
2013-10-30 05:07:27 AM  

nulluspixiusdemonica: Gordon Bennett:   It's a matter of knowing where to look and having the critical thinking skills to separate fact from bollocks and being able to identify the sources of both.

..and avoiding confirmation bias.


Yes. I agree with that completely, so I know you must be right.
 
2013-10-30 05:45:53 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-10-30 05:51:08 AM  

wxboy: Most scientists are pretty terrible at PR.  They worry more about the science.


No they don't, they worry more about getting published because then they get the grants.
There has been a very disturbing trend over the last while. The idea of the scientific method is that it needs to be peer reviewed to confirm its validity. That isn't happening. Slashdot had a good link on it a couple of days ago about Amgen actually sitting down and peer reviewing 53 different published papers regarding cancer and blood biology. They only successfully replicated 6. Sad thing is this issue has been known for a long while and all of a sudden it is just now coming to light in the MSM.
 
2013-10-30 05:58:05 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Because half of all Americans are of below average intelligence?


...you mean "...below median intelligence," of course.

/guess we just figured out which half you're in.
//math is hard
 
2013-10-30 06:31:10 AM  

Peki: Well, I don't listen to the medical opinions of Suzanne Somers and Jenny McCarthy, but I don't think U.S. scientists are without agendas either. They have motivations, are biased, have political interests, have egos, get plied by the pharmaceutical companies, all of which can play when forming their opinions. Hell, I just read an article that criticized a farking ob/gyn because he told women it's okay if you pee during exercise. So, no, I don't believe necessarily believe anything anyone tells me at first light, doesn't matter if you're a 20-yr expert in your field or a dumbass off the street. You could be wrong. I'll form my opinions once I've done my own reading and research. Most of the time, people are just too lazy to do their own research (me too).

Also, regardless of field, experience, or education, generally the people who try the hardest to convince you that they are right are the ones who have the most at stake if found to be wrong. The more someone tries to convince me, the more suspicious I get.


Good idea, lump everyone in the same category and dont believe anything you cant hypothesize yourself.

You better get started on your research, you have a lot of ground to cover.
 
2013-10-30 06:44:54 AM  
For the same reason people believe Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, Savage, Coulter, etc.

They're stupid.
 
2013-10-30 06:47:59 AM  
Part of the blame besides the big distrust in big pharma is the world of instant media. You could blog something, post it and tomorrow it could be taken as fact by the world in a few days
 
2013-10-30 06:54:23 AM  

scotchcrotch: Peki: Well, I don't listen to the medical opinions of Suzanne Somers and Jenny McCarthy, but I don't think U.S. scientists are without agendas either. They have motivations, are biased, have political interests, have egos, get plied by the pharmaceutical companies, all of which can play when forming their opinions. Hell, I just read an article that criticized a farking ob/gyn because he told women it's okay if you pee during exercise. So, no, I don't believe necessarily believe anything anyone tells me at first light, doesn't matter if you're a 20-yr expert in your field or a dumbass off the street. You could be wrong. I'll form my opinions once I've done my own reading and research. Most of the time, people are just too lazy to do their own research (me too).

Also, regardless of field, experience, or education, generally the people who try the hardest to convince you that they are right are the ones who have the most at stake if found to be wrong. The more someone tries to convince me, the more suspicious I get.

Good idea, lump everyone in the same category and dont believe anything you cant hypothesize yourself.

You better get started on your research, you have a lot of ground to cover.


No, he's right. Anyone who was willing to devote any significant effort to convincing an imbecile like him of anything would have to be a highly suspect individual.
 
2013-10-30 07:04:39 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Do you mean "America", subby, or do you mean "low information easily entertained short attention span losers"?


there is a difference?
 
2013-10-30 07:06:50 AM  

SilentStrider: kronicfeld: Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.

Neil Degrasse-Tyson does.


"Hey! Look, Ethel! It's that Billie Dee Williams fella!"
 
2013-10-30 07:18:37 AM  

OtherLittleGuy: SilentStrider: kronicfeld: Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.

Neil Degrasse-Tyson does.

"Hey! Look, Ethel! It's that Billie Dee Williams fella!"


'Billy-D!  Billy-D!  Billy-D!'
 
2013-10-30 07:40:21 AM  
The problem with Jenny McCarthy and Suzanne Sommers isn't their desire to help others, it's the fact they are just incapable of applying a basic scientific foundation to their "beliefs".  They can't help it.  They are women, with small brains.  A brain a third the size of us.  We are men  who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of men we are.
 
2013-10-30 07:49:58 AM  
People like Limbaugh and Somers and McCarthy talk like everyone else; that makes them more believable to the uneducated than the experts using big science words that make them sound like eggheads and know-it-alls.
 
2013-10-30 08:02:02 AM  

rikkards: wxboy: Most scientists are pretty terrible at PR.  They worry more about the science.

No they don't, they worry more about getting published because then they get the grants.
There has been a very disturbing trend over the last while. The idea of the scientific method is that it needs to be peer reviewed to confirm its validity. That isn't happening. Slashdot had a good link on it a couple of days ago about Amgen actually sitting down and peer reviewing 53 different published papers regarding cancer and blood biology. They only successfully replicated 6. Sad thing is this issue has been known for a long while and all of a sudden it is just now coming to light in the MSM.


Things that replicate become useful paradigms. Things that don't are just papers.

There's nothing shocking about a bunch of papers not replicating. As a scientist, you have to do due diligence on previous work.

Another study that was conducted about seven years ago showed that a lot of experimental statistical analyses in the literature were actually very poorly designed.

The real problem isn't just peer review, or lack of it. The problem is a compound of things they discussed in that paper from Amgen, like the fact that biology experimentation is especially messy, that nobody in that laboratory is looking over the experiment after its done , and the peer review process is not all that sensitive to reviewing problems they are not made aware of. Couple that with an almost venomous attack/defense of scientific reputation out there and a realization that publications must happen for science to proceed, and you get the current climate.

The funny thing is that the paper was from Amgen, a company like all others who is interested in cutting back their own R&D and expecting academia and startups to rescue their pipelines. Why? Because internal research is expensive, hard, and the failure rate of practical projects are better off being borne by outside groups. There is a gap between what industry expects from a peer reviewed publication and what academics expect. Industry wants reliable, immediately applicable tools/science, academia wants conversation, and discovery without necessary immediate replication and applicability.

In any event, papers should publish. Up to the scientist reading to trust them.

Industry has to get off their arse, tell their investors to suck it, and start up R&D again in new ways.
 
2013-10-30 08:04:51 AM  

Bendal: People like Limbaugh and Somers and McCarthy talk like everyone else; that makes them more believable to the uneducated than the experts using big science words that make them sound like eggheads and know-it-alls.


Some of us scientists can talk like everyone else. We're just not as photogenic.
 
2013-10-30 08:13:31 AM  
Because they were Tittylicious? You bet!
 
2013-10-30 08:36:46 AM  

docmattic: Uranus Is Huge!: Because half of all Americans are of below average intelligence?

...you mean "...below median intelligence," of course.

/guess we just figured out which half you're in.
//math is hard


Yes. It is. Glad I didn't have any math in my post.

/Vocabulary is hard.
 
2013-10-30 08:41:53 AM  

Peki: fusillade762: So... both sides are bad so vote bimbo?

HA! Not politically!

Science-wise? Well. What's your definition of science? You wait five minutes and suddenly "science" has a new opinion on whether or not coffee is good for you (peer reviewed or not). So if "science" can't make up its mind on coffee, how does the general public know to trust it on vaccines? Especially when you can go through history and see time and time again where science says, "This is GREAT!" and a handful of years later we're all, "oops our bad." Doesn't inspire trust, and trust is something science in the U.S. does not have. I don't take this to an extreme; I've never been a climate change denier. Just wary is all.

Americans are too lazy to do their own research, and the word science gets thrown around too much.


You answered your own question. If the WHOLE scientific field agrees on something (vaccines) there's pretty good evidence that has been peer-reviewed and accepted (I am sure as a scientist you know that). For the coffee thing, I doubt a serious scientist would make the stupid mistake to compare it to something as important as vaccines/global warming, hence the field has not researched it enough/or has not reached a consensus.
Hence, you are stupid. Do not talk/express every time a thought pops out. It will do wonders for you.
 
2013-10-30 09:00:25 AM  

SilentStrider: kronicfeld: Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.

Neil Degrasse-Tyson does.


No Stacey, dude
 
2013-10-30 09:02:04 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Yes. It is. Glad I didn't have any math in my post.


Well, if you use IQ as the measure of "intelligence"-- and since IQ, as a measure, is supposed* to result in a normal distribution--- it seems like, hmmm........
 
2013-10-30 09:07:03 AM  
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2013-10-30 09:08:40 AM  
This is definitely a modern American problem.  There have never been charlatans in other times and places.
 
2013-10-30 09:13:43 AM  

Leader O'Cola: Uranus Is Huge!: Yes. It is. Glad I didn't have any math in my post.

Well, if you use IQ as the measure of "intelligence"-- and since IQ, as a measure, is supposed* to result in a normal distribution--- it seems like, hmmm........


Jesus Christ! It was a light-hearted joke that, apparently, the Fark Pedantry Squad doesn't like.

Fine. I used the wrong word. Average, media... Like It really makes a difference in the context of the post.
 
2013-10-30 09:15:44 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Leader O'Cola: Uranus Is Huge!: Yes. It is. Glad I didn't have any math in my post.

Well, if you use IQ as the measure of "intelligence"-- and since IQ, as a measure, is supposed* to result in a normal distribution--- it seems like, hmmm........

Jesus Christ! It was a light-hearted joke that, apparently, the Fark Pedantry Squad doesn't like.

Fine. I used the wrong word. Average, media... Like It really makes a difference in the context of the post.


uhhh, I was saying that in a normal distribution median====average(mean)
 
2013-10-30 09:18:02 AM  

Leader O'Cola: Uranus Is Huge!: Leader O'Cola: Uranus Is Huge!: Yes. It is. Glad I didn't have any math in my post.

Well, if you use IQ as the measure of "intelligence"-- and since IQ, as a measure, is supposed* to result in a normal distribution--- it seems like, hmmm........

Jesus Christ! It was a light-hearted joke that, apparently, the Fark Pedantry Squad doesn't like.

Fine. I used the wrong word. Average, media... Like It really makes a difference in the context of the post.

uhhh, I was saying that in a normal distribution median====average(mean)


Sorry. It's early here.

And I suck at math.
 
2013-10-30 09:18:16 AM  

Leader O'Cola: Marcus Aurelius: Do you mean "America", subby, or do you mean "low information easily entertained short attention span losers"?

there is a difference?


Americans are dumb.
 
2013-10-30 09:20:35 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Harry_Seldon: I wouldn't ask him how to improve the appearance of my thighs...or would i?

img.fark.net

He actually knows a bit about that

/yes that's him


There's a reason the whole 'Badass' meme got associated with him:

www.geekquality.com

The Doc's got some guns on him.
 
2013-10-30 09:21:53 AM  
And, apparently, his gravitational field attracts the ladies like Jupiter to the Galiean moons:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-30 09:29:10 AM  

MayoSlather: There's nothing wrong with Suzanne Somers' opinions. The problem is people just heard part of what she had to say and took it out of context. It's all a giant misunderstanding.


OK, but if wacky hijinks ensue as a result, I'm blaming you!
 
2013-10-30 09:33:55 AM  
Obamacare caused drink prices to soar at the Regal Beagle.
 
2013-10-30 09:38:07 AM  
Because Oprah and sheeple believe everything Oprah says.
 
2013-10-30 09:41:20 AM  

ongbok: Scientist scary scary to most people because they speak in terms that most people can't understand or think that they can't understand because they shut off their brains once somebody is introduced as a scientist.

Bubbly giggly blonde big tittied talk show host don't have that problem.


Just because someone calls himself a scientist, it doesn't make him or her automatically right because they use big words and expensive equipment and loosely followed a method.  Scientists built the atom bomb.  While Jenny McCarthy or Suzanne Somers (and the Kardasshians and all those others) might be implicated in the figurative downfall of society, scientists are surely going to be responsible for the literal destruction of society, should it happen.

/Off to get my coffee...which, according to scientists, has been good or bad for me over the past 30 years' worth of studies.  Being an odd numbered year, it must be good for me.
//or bad
 
2013-10-30 09:52:53 AM  

Peki: Well, I don't listen to the medical opinions of Suzanne Somers and Jenny McCarthy, but I don't think U.S. scientists are without agendas either. They have motivations, are biased, have political interests, have egos, get plied by the pharmaceutical companies, all of which can play when forming their opinions. Hell, I just read an article that criticized a farking ob/gyn because he told women it's okay if you pee during exercise. So, no, I don't believe necessarily believe anything anyone tells me at first light, doesn't matter if you're a 20-yr expert in your field or a dumbass off the street. You could be wrong. I'll form my opinions once I've done my own reading and research. Most of the time, people are just too lazy to do their own research (me too).


There isn't a lot of money in vaccines (compared to the rest of Big Pharma's wares), particularly as the patents have expired on a lot of them. The vaccines are also widely used and approved by a LOT of non-US governments based on studies by non-US scientists and health experts.

There is as close to unanimous agreement on most vaccines as is possible. The Wakefield MMR controversy even didn't start out as "MMR causes Autism". Wakefield noted that in the tiny group of children he looked at (12 kids IIRC) a surprising portion of the kids who had autism who had received the MMR vaccine also had a bowel condition. The study reported there was a possible casual link between the three issues and that further study might be warranted. Then the media got hold of it, Wakefield saw the opportunity for fame and fortune and everything went downhill from there.
 
2013-10-30 10:03:19 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Do you mean "America", subby, or do you mean "low information easily entertained short attention span losers"?


So America then?

/just berated someone with a graduate degree in psychology for pushing Sex At Dawn on people yesterday.

//yes, he is a formerly overweight male that now runs a sex cult using the hypnotic personality he developed through his study of psychology. Why do you ask?
 
2013-10-30 10:06:38 AM  

Bazzlex001: Marcus Aurelius: Do you mean "America", subby, or do you mean "low information easily entertained short attention span losers"?

So America then?

/just berated someone with a graduate degree in psychology for pushing Sex At Dawn on people yesterday.

//yes, he is a formerly overweight male that now runs a sex cult using the hypnotic personality he developed through his study of psychology. Why do you ask?


Americans are Dumb.
 
2013-10-30 10:52:18 AM  
There should be a special circle of hell reserved for that boob, Jenny McCarthy.

First she self-diagnoses her son as having autism, which she then blames on vaccinations based on nothing.

Then she shouts it from the rooftops until it becomes a meme and thousands stop vaccinating their children as a result, putting everyone at risk.

Finally she comes clean and admits that, yea, my kid never had autism in the first place.  But she does it quietly and with none of the fire and brimstone of her original bullsiat claim leaving many dumb and uniformed still afraid to vaccinate their kids, STILL putting so many at genuine risk.

I dont know what is more pathetic, her, or the idiots that followed her advice.


biatch
 
2013-10-30 11:00:30 AM  

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: Bendal: People like Limbaugh and Somers and McCarthy talk like everyone else; that makes them more believable to the uneducated than the experts using big science words that make them sound like eggheads and know-it-alls.

Some of us scientists can talk like everyone else. We're just not as photogenic.


And some of can talk like everyone else, are photogenic and just have nonexistant video editing skills.

http://www.centerforcommunicatingscience.org/the-flame-challenge-2/m ee t-the-finalists/
 
2013-10-30 11:08:48 AM  

SamFlagg: Why do people believe in snake oil?  Because they want snake oil to work, it is something real and tangible right here right now that I can acquire with minimal effort.

Because I want these things to be true, I therefore force myself to believe those things to be true.

People have an incredible aversion to being wrong about anything at anytime once they've settled on what right is.  (Partially because the first thing they expect to happen when they admit they were wrong is everyone and their uncle come and spike the football in their face and do a touchdown dance and call them stupid for every believing X in this first place, but that idea gets internalized so they have their own version of themselves prepared to do such if nobody does it to them.)

It's not just an American thing, it's a human thing.  We prefer to believe that we know best in all matters, and also like to think that each of us has our own special circumstance that makes the normal rules not apply to us, because dealing with the fact that most of us are relatively mundane and uninteresting is something of a terrifying thought.


That, plus the sheer amount of time and effort as well as ill will generated in friends and family members. They've invested too much time and effort and sometimes at great personal cost to be wrong. I've always said this type of pseudo science is often latched onto by people with lives so sheltered and devoid of any kind of defining struggle that they seek them out.

I have an uncle like this. Nice guy, incredibly smart, follows science and reason in almost all things but don't get him started on vaccines because the conversation train takes a quick detour into crazytown. His "science", from sources like gaia-health.com and greatergoodmovie.com, is solid, whereas anything posted in a journal debunking his beliefs are just part of the conspiracy Big Pharma is perpetrating on us...and on and on and on. He can't be wrong about this, he won't be wrong, because the alternative is that he's an irresponsible parent who put his children in danger, so he stays in the rabbit hole.
 
2013-10-30 11:09:04 AM  
Have you seen the candidates running for the top offices in Virginia?

I would say the average american is a mouth breathing moran, because that number wouldn't be high enough.
 
Bf+
2013-10-30 11:11:12 AM  
www.mediabistro.com
 
2013-10-30 11:16:18 AM  
Because Jesus, that's why subby. I will pray for you.
 
2013-10-30 11:28:50 AM  
d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net
 
2013-10-30 11:52:55 AM  

Flab: Because of Boobies?

(No Fark filters were tripped in the making of this post)


Done in one. They grant the bearer magical powers of attention whoring.
 
2013-10-30 01:25:42 PM  

farkingismybusiness: Probably because of the same reason that she convinced me that mustard on a hot dog is awesome.
[guymeetsworld.files.wordpress.com image 480x580]


Were there words on that cover?
 
2013-10-30 01:32:59 PM  

TheBlackFlag: There should be a special circle of hell reserved for that boob, Jenny McCarthy.

First she self-diagnoses her son as having autism, which she then blames on vaccinations based on nothing.

Then she shouts it from the rooftops until it becomes a meme and thousands stop vaccinating their children as a result, putting everyone at risk.

Finally she comes clean and admits that, yea, my kid never had autism in the first place. But she does it quietly and with none of the fire and brimstone of her original bullsiat claim leaving many dumb and uniformed still afraid to vaccinate their kids, STILL putting so many at genuine risk.

I dont know what is more pathetic, her, or the idiots that followed her advice.



Wait - when did that part happen? You have a link? or suggested Google search terms?
 
2013-10-30 01:36:23 PM  

xalres: That, plus the sheer amount of time and effort as well as ill will generated in friends and family members. They've invested too much time and effort and sometimes at great personal cost to be wrong. I've always said this type of pseudo science is often latched onto by people with lives so sheltered and devoid of any kind of defining struggle that they seek them out.

I have an uncle like this. Nice guy, incredibly smart, follows science and reason in almost all things but don't get him started on vaccines because the conversation train takes a quick detour into crazytown. His "science", from sources like gaia-health.com and greatergoodmovie.com, is solid, whereas anything posted in a journal debunking his beliefs are just part of the conspiracy Big Pharma is perpetrating on us...and on and on and on. He can't be wrong about this, he won't be wrong, because the alternative is that he's an irresponsible parent who put his children in danger, so he stays in the rabbit hole.


I think the best approach to take in this kind of situation is to acknowledge as much as you can of their point, then demonstrate the benefits and safety of different behavior in the future.

For example:

- Yes, mercury is really bad stuff, and very small amounts of it can cause brain development issues in fetuses and young children.

- Almost no vaccines use Themerisol anymore (the multi-dose flu shot is an exception), so you can easily avoid vaccines with any mercury in them.

- The tiny tiny amount of mercury in a multi-dose flu shot means you would have to get 120+ shots every day to start seeing even the beginning symptoms of mercury poisoning.

- Your kids are safe, they didn't get autism or an dangerous diseases, and now that they are older it's a good idea to consider vaccinating them with the safe and effective vaccines that are available.

Good luck!
 
2013-10-30 01:40:47 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: TheBlackFlag: There should be a special circle of hell reserved for that boob, Jenny McCarthy.

First she self-diagnoses her son as having autism, which she then blames on vaccinations based on nothing.

Then she shouts it from the rooftops until it becomes a meme and thousands stop vaccinating their children as a result, putting everyone at risk.

Finally she comes clean and admits that, yea, my kid never had autism in the first place. But she does it quietly and with none of the fire and brimstone of her original bullsiat claim leaving many dumb and uniformed still afraid to vaccinate their kids, STILL putting so many at genuine risk.

I dont know what is more pathetic, her, or the idiots that followed her advice.


Wait - when did that part happen? You have a link? or suggested Google search terms?


Google tells me that she's still a dangerous anti-scientific loon:

McCarthy was interviewed for an article in Time Magazine which asserts that her son Evan actually suffers from a rare condition called Landau-Kleffner syndrome.  The biggest proof of this is that Evan has gotten better, when in reality there is no cure for autism.

McCarthy's son is now able to talk, make eye contact, and maintain friendships, all things which he was initially unable to do.  His early behavior is what led to the early diagnosis of autism, but the recent reversal in his symptoms points to a different cause...

 McCarthy is still not publicly admitting that her son never had autism.  She prefers instead to put forth the idea that she cured him of his autism.  Surely this can't be because she has founded an organization dedicated to "curing autism," and is the wildly popular author of three books about how you can cure your child's autism?
 
2013-10-30 02:03:26 PM  
Well at least Chrissy's boobies are real.
 
2013-10-30 02:52:26 PM  

Zasteva: xalres: That, plus the sheer amount of time and effort as well as ill will generated in friends and family members. They've invested too much time and effort and sometimes at great personal cost to be wrong. I've always said this type of pseudo science is often latched onto by people with lives so sheltered and devoid of any kind of defining struggle that they seek them out.

I have an uncle like this. Nice guy, incredibly smart, follows science and reason in almost all things but don't get him started on vaccines because the conversation train takes a quick detour into crazytown. His "science", from sources like gaia-health.com and greatergoodmovie.com, is solid, whereas anything posted in a journal debunking his beliefs are just part of the conspiracy Big Pharma is perpetrating on us...and on and on and on. He can't be wrong about this, he won't be wrong, because the alternative is that he's an irresponsible parent who put his children in danger, so he stays in the rabbit hole.

I think the best approach to take in this kind of situation is to acknowledge as much as you can of their point, then demonstrate the benefits and safety of different behavior in the future.

For example:

- Yes, mercury is really bad stuff, and very small amounts of it can cause brain development issues in fetuses and young children.

- Almost no vaccines use Themerisol anymore (the multi-dose flu shot is an exception), so you can easily avoid vaccines with any mercury in them.

- The tiny tiny amount of mercury in a multi-dose flu shot means you would have to get 120+ shots every day to start seeing even the beginning symptoms of mercury poisoning.

- Your kids are safe, they didn't get autism or an dangerous diseases, and now that they are older it's a good idea to consider vaccinating them with the safe and effective vaccines that are available.

Good luck!


A few in my family have tried. He's just too far gone. He's convinced the pertussis outbreaks in heavily anti-vaxx areas are caused by the vaccine...it's bordering on mental illness. Right now we're at "agree to disagree" on this subject so we just don't talk about it but if something happens to my cousins I don't think I'll be able to keep from tearing him a new arsehole. Of all the asinine things to latch onto he picked the irresponsible and dangerous one.
 
2013-10-30 03:43:35 PM  

Mad_Radhu: [img.fark.net image 425x355]

I dunno. You really can't trust the rain to get all the blood off, and dried blood is pretty obvious even on a red car.


I'm concerned that I had the same thought.
 
2013-10-30 05:01:52 PM  

Phil Clinton: And isn't it illegal to give medical advice to people if you're not a doctor? I remember hearing that a while ago and then google confirmed it was. It was a few years back though.


Specific medical advise based on a patient's history or trying to make a diagnosis, yes.
General health info, not really.
 
2013-10-30 06:13:35 PM  
We should put all these vapid twunts into an area and force them to fight each other to the death... And then ship the winner to Antarctica.
 
2013-10-30 07:24:12 PM  

Phil Clinton: And isn't it illegal to give medical advice to people if you're not a doctor?  I remember hearing that a while ago and then google confirmed it was.  It was a few years back though.


I would think it would be as illegal as dipensing legal advice, but don't take my word for it.
 
2013-10-31 12:35:55 AM  

ZeroCorpse: hubiestubert: I have an easy method to help remedy this, but it will take a few generations, and some concerted effort on all our parts, and that it is voiced by John Waters, should give it the weight that a celebrity crazed public can understand:

'If you go home with somebody, and they don't have books, don't f*ck 'em!'

Seriously, folks. You have the power. Ladies, that goes double for y'all.

It's an outdated idea... I don't have many paper books left. I don't have room for them, and I've converted to digital in the past few years...  So my bookshelf isn't exactly visible to visitors.

Meanwhile, speaking as a former bookseller, I am absolutely certain that many people buy books with no intention of ever reading them; They are, instead, part of the decor. Every time Oprah endorsed a book we sold a ton of them, and from conversing with my customers I can tell you that maybe 20% of the books sold were ever cracked open. The rest were coffee table decor, or placed in a bookshelf to make people think the homeowner was well-informed and up on the latest trends.

We had people who would come in and buy several best-sellers each month, and in later encounters with them it was clear they never read the books they bought; They were just for show.

So the entire practice of judging a person with a large library or bookshelf as "intellectual" is flawed from the beginning. OWNING books doesn't necessarily prove you actually READ books, and a lack of visible books does not indicate that someone is a non-reader.


Yeah, and besides, I'd hope by the time someone comes home with me (or vice-versa), I'd have a grasp on whether they're reasonably intelligent and well-read or not.
 
2013-10-31 02:54:57 AM  

Bukharin: [d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net image 304x475]


Great book. I read it 20 years ago while doing research for a college paper on cultural shift from people relying on the clergy for advice to relying on whoever the media chose to put forward as "experts".
 
2013-10-31 06:33:18 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Ctrl-Alt-Del: TheBlackFlag: There should be a special circle of hell reserved for that boob, Jenny McCarthy.

First she self-diagnoses her son as having autism, which she then blames on vaccinations based on nothing.

Then she shouts it from the rooftops until it becomes a meme and thousands stop vaccinating their children as a result, putting everyone at risk.

Finally she comes clean and admits that, yea, my kid never had autism in the first place. But she does it quietly and with none of the fire and brimstone of her original bullsiat claim leaving many dumb and uniformed still afraid to vaccinate their kids, STILL putting so many at genuine risk.

I dont know what is more pathetic, her, or the idiots that followed her advice.


Wait - when did that part happen? You have a link? or suggested Google search terms?

Google tells me that she's still a dangerous anti-scientific loon:

McCarthy was interviewed for an article in Time Magazine which asserts that her son Evan actually suffers from a rare condition called Landau-Kleffner syndrome.  The biggest proof of this is that Evan has gotten better, when in reality there is no cure for autism.

McCarthy's son is now able to talk, make eye contact, and maintain friendships, all things which he was initially unable to do.  His early behavior is what led to the early diagnosis of autism, but the recent reversal in his symptoms points to a different cause...

 McCarthy is still not publicly admitting that her son never had autism.  She prefers instead to put forth the idea that she cured him of his autism.  Surely this can't be because she has founded an organization dedicated to "curing autism," and is the wildly popular author of three books about how you can cure your child's autism?



Man, didn't know all this.  My 'respect' for her has moved from -12390.234 points to -234987230498972347892374 points.

JFC, what a despicable , evil coont.
 
2013-10-31 08:10:08 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: WhyteRaven74: Harry_Seldon: I wouldn't ask him how to improve the appearance of my thighs...or would i?

[img.fark.net image 850x566]

He actually knows a bit about that

/yes that's him

There's a reason the whole 'Badass' meme got associated with him:

[www.geekquality.com image 400x608]

The Doc's got some guns on him.


Seriously, that's pretty awesome.
 
Displayed 171 of 171 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report