Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshgel | Hacker News Reader

I find that in office politics, once data is presented, it becomes the 'facts'. (Or at least the narrative that gets promulgated forward.) It's incredibly challenging to change the 'facts'/narrative. Often because of the challenge in demonstrating the others' data are false or show a misleading picture.

I think this is somewhat like convincing people that believed the early studies on hydroxychloroquine. A narrative was built and despite multiple studies and RCTs, it continues in many circles. If the initial data showed a different picture, I have a hard time imagining the on-going challenge of fighting this disinformation battle. (it would have been another).

View on HN

> It's incredibly challenging to change the 'facts'/narrative.

It's incredibly easy if you control the narrative factories. For example, consider the sudden switch from "masks don't work unless they're N95, you need an MD to put one on correctly, and if you buy them you're an egotistical asshole who's putting our medical workers in danger" to "even plain cloth masks are useful, everyone must wear one at all times, and if you didn't buy one you're an egotistical asshole who's putting everyone in danger" earlier this year. Took less than a week.

I was pro-mask since before the narrative switch, but it would be completely irresponsible to sit back and say "oh well, good on them for correcting themselves, that's how science works after all". That was a real "we've always been at war with Eastasia" moment: a naked exercise of power, which could be used just as easily to switch from a true narrative to a false one, or from one lie to another.

AIUI N95 masks give you some protection against others who are emitting the virus whereas a simple cloth mask catches wet aerosolised particles in the 0.1 seconds they take to dry up, meaning that they protect other people from you.

I agree the switch occurred and surely things should have been handled better, but your post comes across as weirdly paranoid.

AIUI, your understanding is true, but that's not the narrative the overwhelming majority of people I've encountered in real life were following, before or after.

I don't consider "We have had both ongoing hostilities and peace talks with both Eurasia and Eastasia for the entire time Oceania has existed.", even if true, to be a refutation of the claim that the narrative switched to "we've always been at war with Eastasia".

Can you stop with the 1984 eurasia stuff.

So plainly put, what is "narrative the overwhelming majority of people [you've] encountered"? And what's it got to do with masks that may slow covid?

> Can you stop with the 1984 eurasia stuff[?]

Yes, I just choose not to, to emphasise the danger of putting politics ahead of epistemic integrity.

> So plainly put, what is "narrative [[about masks and covid]] the overwhelming majority of people [you've] encountered"?

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24031462:

> > the sudden switch from "masks don't work unless they're N95, you need an MD to put one on correctly, and if you buy them you're an egotistical asshole who's putting our medical workers in danger" to "even plain cloth masks are useful, everyone must wear one at all times, and if you didn't buy one you're an egotistical asshole who's putting everyone in danger" earlier this year. Took less than a week.

I assumed that was obvious from context, since your comment was responding to claims about those narratives.

Yet there are people not wearing masks because they believe they don’t work, refuting your point.

As it’s still going on, I’d say it took more than a week.

You're shifting goalposts from official recommendations to those being trusted or followed.

They're following a different narrative authority. The fact that there are competing powers does not mean that power does not exist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com