Cyclists dumbfounded by bizarre online conspiracy theory claiming bike inner tube valve is a "5G antenna tracking device" inserted under skin after Covid jab

there is a very big inner tube factory in Wuhan

Chinese Government Black Ops couldn't believe their luck when the lyingest PM in British history turned up leading a Tory mission to destroy the UK economy, without the Chinese having to do very much. The Wuhan Covid lab then followed up and began the seemingly impossible task of genetic engineering the Johnson genome into something even more destructive to the UK and even more beloved of the Hyper-Junk Press- unfortunately, the Trussinator was released too early, with no redeeming features at all and too much of the Dimness factor distilled from the ambience at Tory party conferences. Consequently, she crashed and burned before she could complete her task, but Wuhan has managed to keep her ticking over along with a re-engineered Kwarteng, lurking in the darkness, a warning from History.

mitsky wrote:

Lets not forget about this...
-'Hypervaccinated’ man reportedly received 217 Covid jabs without side effects-

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/06/hypervaccinated-man-217-...

He must have rattled whenever he moved his arm with all those valves stuck inside him

OldRidgeback wrote:

Can you imagine how stupid you'd have to be to believe that? I mean, how big a hypodermic would you need to insert something that size? Was the original post meant as a prank to see how many dimwits would believe it?

There seems to be a real lack of critical thinking amongst people these days. Our schools seem to train kids to not think for themselves and instead just go along with whatever the authority figure (i.e. teacher) is saying. Teachers don't have time to deal with the independent thinkers who may end up questioning if the teacher states a "fact" that doesn't ring true - they have to prioritise getting the kids through exams instead. That can then backfire when adults realise that they've been misled most of their lives and then seek out other sources of information which is how they get sucked into conspiracy theories, which despite telling people to "do your own research", doesn't equip people with the tools to logically determine if something makes sense or not.

I think the failing is that the 'critical thinkers' don't get taught how to critically think, so later they end up going with what fits into their own internal logic.

But that's just a guess based on my own internal logic..

Car Delenda Est wrote:

I think the failing is that the 'critical thinkers' don't get taught how to critically think, so later they end up going with what fits into their own internal logic. But that's just a guess based on my own internal logic..

I do enjoy a good plausible conspiracy theory as there's plenty of examples where governments have conspired against their people. However, it bugs me when a lazy theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If there's factories churning out all these implants to distribute to everyone getting COVID vaccinations, then that's a lot of people involved in the manufacture and distribution and conspiracies break down as more people get involved (it only takes a whistleblower or two).

Also, if a government wants to track/control people, then it'd be a lot easier to convince phone companies to put in backdoors for their use - that'd create far less of a trail than having some metal antenna thing put in everyone's arm which would be discovered by quite a few and would likely set off airport security. Injecting a lumpy metal thing is just not a very effective way of conspiring, especially when there's already a subsection of society that don't trust vaccinations anyhow. It also leaves physical evidence in control of the subjects.

Turns out that both a lack of information and a surfeit can be deleterious for human thinking.  (They're not the first but the Russian intelligence services clearly picked up on the latter).

It seems the smartest may act according to the knowledge of how very close to that of other apes our intelligence is* ... but the best trick is not saying it aloud!

* A remarkable kludge of disparate subsystems, mostly very specialised and limited, held together by some "just good enough" heuristics.  The whole being evolved to cope with tackling previous problems in rather different environments.

hawkinspeter wrote:

There seems to be a real lack of critical thinking amongst people these days. Our schools seem to train kids to not think for themselves and instead just go along with whatever the authority figure (i.e. teacher) is saying. 

And the near-half that go into higher education get the same. Is this the result of target culture and customer satisfaction?

levestane wrote:

And the near-half that go into higher education get the same. Is this the result of target culture and customer satisfaction?

Higher education will depend on what field/subject as some disciplines require critical thinking and others rely on regurgitating the current state of knowledge.

As a teacher, parent, and someone who studied critical psychology at masters level - I think you're right. However, there is a fine line between thinking 'critically' and 'not trusting experts'. It seems most people fall into the latter camp these days, and I'm not sure what that stems from other than political rhetoric.

Proper critical work (e.g. in psychology, sociology etc) is a skill which can be learned and isn't just about saying 'well this is the dominant explanation of this therefore it must be wrong,' but instead actually being critical, deconstructing the argument, seeing who is set to benefit from that position. It *can* be taught, and I always encourage my own students and kids to ask 'but why?', just as I was as a child. As a society I think we're lurching ever more towards the authoritarian right, where there's decreasing flexibility to ask 'why?' - people follow rules just because they're rules, without ever stopping to ask if they make sense (riding on an empty pavement with children, riding through red lights on clear junctions being cycling specific examples of this) and I suppose the lack of availablity for that questioning leads people to say 'oh, well all experts must be wrong then'. 

I was seen as a smart arse/trouble maker at school because I had always been encouraged by my parents to question things which seemed unjust, but as a teacher I do find myself having to say that things have to be done 'because it's the rules, even if you don't agree with it.' I would hope that schools are actually better than you imagine at fostering original thought, but it's probably reserved for the higher attainers; those just scraping through exams have to be taught the information they need, there's no extra room for debate/discussion. There is an attempt to revise social science curriculums to recognise critical race theory, post-colonial theory etc but this is met with the predictable uproar from you-know-who. It's a shame, because everyone benefits from being able to think freely, but I suspect there's a load of snobbery involved in who gets to wield that power; evidence for this is in the socioeconomic status of people who post these sort of conspiracy theories online, I suspect the background and education status of them is not representative of society at large. 

Can I sign up for one of your classes, as they sound very interesting !

Ha! Alas, no time for this stuff in my actual job. Just catch me down the pub. 

Good work!

I suspect institutionalising the development of this kind of enquiring intellect is not easy - and perhaps less / not amenable to applying a "pattern".  Hence some schools and institutions are selling the notion that they can for large sums*.

* Of course they also tend to be selling the idea that you'll be making influential friends - both are no doubt desired by parents.

Dogless wrote:

As a teacher, parent, and someone who studied critical psychology at masters level - I think you're right. However, there is a fine line between thinking 'critically' and 'not trusting experts'. It seems most people fall into the latter camp these days, and I'm not sure what that stems from other than political rhetoric.

Proper critical work (e.g. in psychology, sociology etc) is a skill which can be learned and isn't just about saying 'well this is the dominant explanation of this therefore it must be wrong,' but instead actually being critical, deconstructing the argument, seeing who is set to benefit from that position. It *can* be taught, and I always encourage my own students and kids to ask 'but why?', just as I was as a child. As a society I think we're lurching ever more towards the authoritarian right, where there's decreasing flexibility to ask 'why?' - people follow rules just because they're rules, without ever stopping to ask if they make sense (riding on an empty pavement with children, riding through red lights on clear junctions being cycling specific examples of this) and I suppose the lack of availablity for that questioning leads people to say 'oh, well all experts must be wrong then'. 

I was seen as a smart arse/trouble maker at school because I had always been encouraged by my parents to question things which seemed unjust, but as a teacher I do find myself having to say that things have to be done 'because it's the rules, even if you don't agree with it.' I would hope that schools are actually better than you imagine at fostering original thought, but it's probably reserved for the higher attainers; those just scraping through exams have to be taught the information they need, there's no extra room for debate/discussion. There is an attempt to revise social science curriculums to recognise critical race theory, post-colonial theory etc but this is met with the predictable uproar from you-know-who. It's a shame, because everyone benefits from being able to think freely, but I suspect there's a load of snobbery involved in who gets to wield that power; evidence for this is in the SEO of people who post these sort of conspiracy theories online, I suspect the background and education status of them is not representative of society at large. 

What snaps my cranks about modern education is the notion of "magic words". Most exams don't test for ability or actual understanding behind the topics, but instead are looking for specific words to be mentioned e.g. "condensation", or "mitochondria".

There's an example of this taken from "Surely You're joking, Mr Feynman!" that highlights the difference between memorisation and understanding

https://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education

(I also like his idea that if you can't explain a topic to a child, then you don't really understand it)

hawkinspeter wrote:

There seems to be a real lack of critical thinking amongst people these days. Our schools seem to train kids to not think for themselves and instead just go along with whatever the authority figure (i.e. teacher) is saying. 

But if teachers taught critical thinking, then wouldn't critical thinking by definition become the new authority figure orthodoxy?!

quiff wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

There seems to be a real lack of critical thinking amongst people these days. Our schools seem to train kids to not think for themselves and instead just go along with whatever the authority figure (i.e. teacher) is saying. 

But if teachers taught critical thinking, then wouldn't critical thinking by definition become the new authority figure orthodoxy?!

Well yes, but critical thinking is more of a set of skills and techniques rather than a particular set of statements. It's generally more about the questions than the specific answers.

e.g.

Asking who benefits from "critical thinking" vs "received dogma":

Critical thinking is likely to benefit the individual in terms of not getting deceived and possibly society in general in that people will examine statements from multiple viewpoints.

Received dogma is likely to benefit the people at the top of the hierarchy and possibly  provide a benefit to society in terms of a unified set of beliefs and unquestioning support.

I would consider that Western society started to drastically accelerate in terms of knowledge, science and technology by having more people rejecting dogma and instead questioning previously held beliefs such as geocentrism.

That's the beauty of proper critical thought though, it addresses the power imbalances in society and can be taught as a way of approaching something. It's not 'this is how you do it' or 'you can question everything anyone says ever' but about applying a lens to stuff to see what's really happening. It's the polar opposite, in fact, to what conspiracy theorists think they're doing by saying they're doing their own research by just believing, uncritically, a different authority figure.
Critical human sciences are bloody brilliant, but that's probably because I have a doggedly anti-authority mindset (reflexivity is another key tenet).

And if I tried to inspire you that critical thinking isn't just about finding problems with someone else's logic?

Then you might consider that students would be engaged in the process, have a sense of agency in their education, and they wouldn't "just be going along with the orthodoxy" blindly

PSI-chic surgery still has its adherents.  (Probably more with tubeless sealant).  Presumably it's not much less unlikely for someone to extract bike parts from you?

Or is it more creative "aerodynamic storage"?

Nothing new to people believing that unusual things are to be found within, anyway.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Can you imagine how stupid you'd have to be to believe that? I mean, how big a hypodermic would you need to insert something that size?

They use a normal sixed syringe to inject you with self-assembling nanoprobes which then build the 5G tracker inside you.

Obviously 

Whatever you do don't tell them about nano technology. 

Or maybe just hissed a bit?