Ignoring Joe Biden’s Unassailable Fact: A Serious Deficiency of the Debate Analysis

 

The Debate uproar continues largely at a very superficial level.  That level is basically that Joe Biden is too old and feeble to be President and therefore he needs to step down and the Democrats need to run another candidate for the sake of “not losing the office.”  This is being spun at multiple levels.  We are hearing stories about White House Staff being conflicted, the President offering cookies to members of Congress, the plausibility of sleep deprivation as an explanation, and even provided with a list of 10 possible Democratic candidates. Whenever supporters of the President come forward the wisdom of loyalists is being questioned rather than what they describe.  The actual content of the debate continues to be ignored as if Joe Biden did not provide any. 

I came up with the following diagram to put things into perspective.  It consists of Trump’s hyperbole about Joe Biden and the single Biden response that effectively cancels that hyperbole across multiple dimensions.  Instead of hearing anything about that response the news media continues the endless speculation about Biden’s Presidency and who should replace him.  The excerpts in the table below are taken directly from the CNN transcript that is easily accessible.  For the sake of simplicity – I eliminated Biden’s point-by-point responses to the Trump hyperbole that were more than adequate and included only the responses that included his reference to the Presidential Greatness survey.

Trump	Biden
“He also said he inherited 9 percent inflation. No, he inherited almost no inflation, and it stayed that way for 14 months. And then it blew up under his leadership because they spent money like a bunch of people that didn’t know what they were doing. And they don’t know what they were doing. It was the worst – probably the worst administration in history. There’s never been.”
“But look, we had the safest border in history. Now we have the worst border in history. There’s never been anything like it. And people are dying all over the place, including the people that are coming up in caravans.”
“Nobody had been worse. I had the highest approval rating for veterans, taking care of the V.A. He has the worst. He’s gotten rid of all the things that I approved – Choice, that I got through Congress. All of the different things I approved, they abandoned.”
“First of all, our veterans and our soldiers can’t stand this guy. They can’t stand him. They think he’s the worst commander in chief, if that’s what you call him, that we’ve ever had. They can’t stand him. So let’s get that straight. And they like me more than just about any of them. And that’s based on every single bit of information.”
“His presidency, his – without question, the worst president, the worst presidency in the history of our country. We shouldn’t be having a debate about it. There’s nothing to debate.”	“The idea that veterans are not being taken care of, I told you before – and, by the way, when I said “suckers and losers,” he said – he acknowledged after it that he fired that general. That general got fired because he’s the one that acknowledged that that’s what he said. He was the one standing with Trump when he said it, number one.   Number two, the idea that we’re going to be in a situation where all these millions and millions, the way he talks about it, illegal aliens are coming into the country and taking away our jobs, there’s a reason why we have the fastest-growing economy in the world, a reason why we have the most successful economy in the world. We’re doing better than any other nation in the world.   And, by the way, those 15 Nobel laureates, economists, they all said that if Trump is re-elected, we’re likely to have a recession, and inflation is going to increasingly go up.   And by the way, worst president in history. 159 presidential scholars voted him the worst president in the history of the United States of America.”
“He caused inflation. As sure as you’re sitting there, the fact is that his big kill on the black people is the millions of people that he’s allowed to come in through the border. They’re taking black jobs now and it could be 18. It could be 19 and even 20 million people. They’re taking black jobs and they’re taking Hispanic jobs and you haven’t seen it yet, but you’re going to see something that’s going to be the worst in our history.”
“Did you fire anybody? Did you fire anybody that’s on the border, that’s allowed us to have the worst border in the history of the world? Did anybody get fired for allowing 18 million people, many from prisons, many from mental institutions? Did you fire anybody that allowed our country to be destroyed? Joe, our country is being destroyed as you and I sit up here and waste a lot of time on this debate. This shouldn’t be a debate.”   “He is the worst president. He just said it about me because I said it. But look, he’s the worst president in the history of our country. He’s destroyed our country. Now, all of a sudden, he’s trying to get a little tough on the border. He come out – came out with a nothing deal, and it reduced it a little bit. A little bit, like this much. It’s insignificant.”   “He wants open borders. He wants our country to either be destroyed or he wants to pick up those people as voters. And I don’t think – we just can’t let it happen. If he wins this election, our country doesn’t have a chance. Not even a chance of coming out of this rut. We probably won’t have a country left anymore. That’s how bad it is. He is the worst in history by far.”	“Number two, the idea that we’re talking about worst presidents. I wasn’t joking. Look it up. Go online. 159 or 58, don’t hold me the exact number, presidential historians. They’ve had meetings and they voted who’s the worst president in American history. One through best to worst. They said he was the worst in all of American history. That’s a fact. That’s not conjecture. He can argue the wrong, but that’s what they voted.”
“Just you understand, we have polling. We have other things that do – they rate him the worst because what he’s done is so bad. And they rate me – yes, I’ll show you. I will show you. And they rate me one of the best. OK.”
“All my life I’d grow up and I’d see politicians talking about cutting taxes. When we cut taxes, as I said, we did more business. Apple and all these companies, they were bringing money back into our country. The worst president in history by far, and everybody knows it.”
“But he hasn’t cut the tariffs because he can’t, because it’s too much money. But he’s got the largest deficit in the history of our country and he’s got the worst situation with China. China is going to own us if you keep allowing them to do what they’re doing to us as a country. They are killing us as a country, Joe, and you can’t let that happen. You’re destroying our country.”
“Then he came along. The numbers – have you seen the numbers now? It’s not only the 18 million people that I believe is even low, because the gotaways, they don’t even talk about gotaways. But the numbers of – the amount of drugs and human trafficking in women coming across our border, the worst thing I’ve ever seen at numbers – nobody’s ever seen under him because the border is so bad. But the number of drugs coming across our border now is the largest we’ve ever had by far.”

 

What do I conclude from this analysis?  Far from being feeble – Joe Biden presented solid information that (as far as I can tell) was ignored by all the talking heads.  Trump’s characterizations of Biden as the worst President are strictly hyperbole. Biden’s response points out that according to a survey of 154 Presidential scholars Biden is ranked #14 and Trump is dead last at #45.  Beyond that obvious fact – Biden is ranked higher than Reagan (#16), George HW Bush (#19), and George W Bush (#32).  In a follow up article it was noted that Trump ranks lower than William Henry Harrison (#41) who died 31 days after taking office.  There seems to be no doubt about where Presidential scholars rank Trump.

The implications of this transcript are clear.  There is always the possibility that Biden has suddenly developed severe problems by per my previous post – but I doubt it. Anyone should be very skeptical about the stories coming out of the press at this time.  Ageist bias is so prevalent that it affects all these stories.  The associated lack of criticism of Trump by comparison is telling. There have been stories suggesting that Trump “lied” anywhere from 30 to 50 times.  I checked these lies against the transcript and they are there. The problem with that analysis is that Trump gets a pass by the MAGA crowd and most of the media whenever he does lie.  The best example is the stolen election lie. Any interview about this typically results in Trump repeating the statement until the journalists stops asking the question.  That strategy is obvious even in the debate transcript.

Another consideration is misinformation and how that affects the ongoing debate spin. The standard MAGA misinformation channels should be ignored.  There is undoubtedly a more insidious effort by enemies of the United States to create additional misinformation on social media.  It is obvious that Russia and Putin see the election of Trump as more consistent with their interests because of Trump’s lack of support for Ukraine and NATO.  Russia clearly supports groups hacking and extorting American businesses.  Threat analysis suggests that Russia, China, and Iran are actively interfering with US elections by misinformation that includes generative AI based approaches.  It should be clear that these countries would prefer a President who is isolationist, does not back Ukraine or NATO, and one who they believe they can manipulate.  Trump’s former National Security Advisor John Bolton believes that Putin knows he can easily manipulate Trump.

All of this information is being ignored in the face of the Presidential debate and the fact that Biden basically looked bad even though he easily produced content that countered Trump’s hyperbole and advanced his own case.  This is not the first-time appearances at a debate were considered a deciding factor.  As I have written in the past, I don’t generally consider the economy to be determined by Presidents – they either take credit or get blamed even though most of the economy is outside of their sphere of influence.  There is plenty of misinformation out there about the economy and the fact it is a motivating factor for people to vote for Trump. There is no doubt that the Biden economy is better and his policies will strengthen the economy in the future.

There is a big interview between Biden and George Stephanopoulos coming up this evening.  We will see if Biden can present in a way to reassure the voters – but all things equal they are still going to hold his age against him.  It is unfortunate that there is little rational discussion of the issue at this point – including the points that Biden made in the debate.   

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

 

Addendum:

The Joe Biden - George Stephanopoulos Interview:

I watched the entire brief interview this evening.  I thought it was an exercise in gotcha journalism.  Biden responded with reasonable answers to why he wants to continue to run and why he is the best person for the job.  His response about whether or not he would take a "cognitive exam" was also reasonable - basically that his job is a cognitive exam every day.  Stephanopoulos' interview technique was controlling and trying to get Biden to respond to hypotheticals that he eventually stated he would not respond to.  He also asked Biden to respond to uncorroborated speculation.  I thought that overall it was a very poor interview and Biden handled it as well as anyone could.  In many ways it was an interrogation rather than an interview. Another disappointing aspect of the interview was the additional four journalists that Stephanopoulos discussed the current situation with. They all clearly had a fixed agenda that Biden should withdraw for various reasons and seemed to be trying to create news rather than report it.  That seems to be the basic problem for Biden at this point.  The news media is more critical of him than Trump - despite Trump's massive deficiencies. As an expert on cognitive testing of the elderly I can add that the "cognitive test" that Trump brags about - is really a screening test that is not sensitive enough to pick up anything short of a moderate to severe problem.  They are easy for anyone who is not cognitively impaired.  Trump has also been noted to brag about his results on this screening test as well as inaccurately describing the test - specifically the naming tasks and word recall task.  All of those details as well as this quote are from reference 1:

"It's a very, very low bar for somebody who carries the nuclear launch codes in their pocket to pass and certainly nothing to brag about," said Jonathan Reiner, a cardiologist and professor of medicine and surgery at the George Washington School of Medicine &Health Sciences.

If there is a cognitive contest between Biden and Trump - and I am sure that will never happen - testing should occur in the same manner, given by the same examiner and it should be recorded for outside validation purposes.  It should also be a more rigorous screen - like the test battery given to physicians in some centers if they want to practice past the age of 75.

But at this point Biden's fate appears to be predetermined by a media bias against him that does not exist for his opponent.

References:

1:    Parker A, Diamond D.  A ‘whale’ of a tale: Trump continues to distort cognitive test he took.  Washington Post Jan 19, 2024.

Graphic Reference:

Presidential Greatness Project - see rankings at this site.  Biden #14  Trump #45 

Disclaimer: 

As previously noted I am not now and have never been a member of any political party in the United States.  At the same time, it is clear to me that the Republican party, their Presidential candidate Donald Trump, and their partisan Supreme Court are an unprecedented danger to the United States that I have known all of my life and that they should be defeated. It is also clear that they have a level of organization that resulted in political advantages over the opposition and that their rhetorical strategy is to blame the opposition for what they in fact are doing

Supplementary 1: 

The following Tweet today from Norman Ornstein:

He does a good job capturing the media bias against Biden.  There is also more than a little conflict of interest at the NYT - since their editorial board has already said that Biden should step down.  Practically every journalist I see - even after the Stephanopoulos interview is either explicitly or implicitly suggesting that Biden should step down, that Democrats will tell him to step down, or that he will lose the election if he doesn't.  That kind of stacks the deck against you in polls - especially when almost all of the polls quoted are poorly characterized to the point that they may lack validity.   There have been comparisons with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is often faulted by the left for not stepping down in time for President Obama to appoint a successor.  She is an easy scapegoat for a party who failed to win the Senate or maintain any countermeasures for right wing activism that seeks to appoint as many federal judges as possible.  Comparing a life long appointment in the case of Ginsburg to being elected President and according to experts doing a better than average job lacks equivalency.  There is also a clear asymmetry in the criticism with Trump getting a complete pass despite his abysmal rating as a President.  Instead of even mild criticism in Trump's direction - I expect the press to continue to portray Biden's presidential bid as a scandal and look for any evidence to back that opinion up.  

Supplementary 2: 

Conclusory language is discouraged in many formats in psychiatry like evaluations for civil commitment, guardianship, and conservatorship.  The idea is that conclusory language short circuits uncertainty and statutory requirements and can prematurely lead to a wrong conclusion.  Even routine psychiatric evaluations should avoid conclusory language in favor of probability statements or statements about the inherent uncertainty in medical evaluations.   

All of the press that I have seen comment on the debate or the Stephanopoulos interview have been using conclusory language or suggesting that they have a source who will provide that language.  Needless to say that is all highly prejudicial against Biden.

Misinformation X

I have a lot of blog posts in the works right now. That strategy works for me because my attention has always been a problem and it works better to work on many things at once rather than bogging down on one. I decided to post on this topic and the one that may be the most relevant. The content of my blog tends to go from scientific and medical topics, to social topics, to a lot of posts that address current misinformation. The Information Age has become the Misinformation Age and there is probably no better example than the platform formerly known as Twitter.

Twitter used to be an invigorating and informative place for physicians. I could count on reasonable discussions and literature references by daily participation and focusing on specific colleagues. In psychiatry – there is a chronic misinformation problem dating back to Szasz, Foucault, and others in the 1970s.  They created tropes and memes that are still repeatedly used by antipsychiatrists today to deny the reality of mental illness and the real function and value of psychiatry. In many ways this sort of criticism has generalized to the rest of medicine and that became very clear during and after the pandemic.  The takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk and his so-called “free speech” policies made that site a fountain of misinformation.  The amount of misinformation would be embarrassing to anyone concerned with the truth or reality but these days those constraints clearly do not apply.  The truth is of little value in much of what can be read on X.  I would go as far as saying the truth is actively devalued on X and you can read falsehoods about settled areas of science, medicine, and public policy.

There is a clear positive correlation between the transition in management and an increase in misinformation, hate speech, hate speech and antisemitism.  Problems also existed before that transition and some were highlighted during the pandemic. Misinformation about vaccinations, masks, and public health personnel were clear problems. Despite what happened during the pandemic that misinformation has clearly increased.  The day before I started writing this post there was a great deal of misinformation about how “jabs” (misinfospeak for COVID immunizations) cause blood clots and that there would be a tsunami of deaths from thromboembolic diseases.  Several physicians posted clearcut evidence to refute this misinformation.  Most physicians are also aware of the fact that immunization are the single most effective intervention to prevent death in large populations. That evidence, including the evidence for COVID-19 immunization effectiveness is indisputable.  Medical research on Long-COVID or chronic symptoms following infection with the virus is also clearer now. Trying to avoid that chronic state and the associated disability is another good reason to get immunized.    Practicing physicians have a healthy respect for respiratory viruses.  We have all seen healthy young people die from infections with what are considered common cold viruses.  

A great solution for physicians and scientist would be a medical or scientific Twitter.  It seems like a simple matter but I suppose maintenance and day-to-day fees would need to be covered in addition to the original programming. To prevent the vulgarians shouting in the city square behavior of X – a simple model of behavior consistent with what would be expected in a medical or scientific staff meeting should suffice. No personal attacks, gaslighting, ridiculing, etc. and active moderation.  People would certainly be able to debate the merits of climate change and other controversial topics – but the arguments would need to be based on facts and scientific merit rather than political rhetoric. People would not be allowed to post baseless claims about another person, a theory, or a piece of research. 

The defenders of name calling, gaslighting, and misinformation all tend to hide behind the First Amendment. There is plenty of evidence in the current news that there is no absolute right to say whatever you want to say about a person or a business.  Hundreds of millions of dollars have been assessed as legal penalties for those statements in several high-profile civil suits. Litigation is a crude and expensive instrument for keeping discourse focused and civil.  A specific environment is a much better approach. Instead of proclaiming a web site as having absolute free speech – it is far better to have the exchanges moderated according to specific rules. Hence the staff meeting approach.  I have certainly been in staff meetings where tempers flared, but there was no name calling or threatening behavior. There was disagreement about information but at no point was there any question about deliberately misrepresenting the information or repeatedly lying about it.  The largest professional staff I worked with was about 35 psychiatrists.  The entire time I worked there I had no doubt about the integrity or sincerity of my colleagues – even though some of the disagreements were intense. 

Who might run such a Twitter-like operation?   The American Psychiatric Association (APA) ran an email listserv that I participated in for decades.  They decided to stop this in the past year.  It had probably run its course.  The number of new participants and total participants was low.  Discussion by email tends to become too diffuse and they are difficult to reference later. There were also limitations on discussions based on the charitable status of the organization – no political discussions.  Twitter seemed like an ideal format for discussions, educational threads, and daily reviews. I doubt that the APA or AMA have the resources for a Twitter like platform but they might and it could be seen as a benefit to potential members. Doximity comes to mind.  Currently Doximity has threads that are posted as news updates presumably by their editors. They tend to be much less interesting than good Twitter threads and discussions.  A Twitter like platform would be a greater asset in attracting physicians to the site.  LinkedIn tends to have the same constraints as Doximity but it does allow member to start new threads. All of the commercial threads suffer from commercialization and overly intrusive members.  I don’t want to see an endless sequence of friend or connection requests when it is obvious that I have nothing in common with those requestors.  On Twitter – the commonalities were obvious and I knew who to follow.   

The competitors that were started based on Twitter’s obvious demise – Blue Sky, Threads, and Mastodon just don’t seem to have active physician communities at this point.  As more physicians leave Twitter – there is a clear socialization and discussion gap. It is probably obvious that I have no clear solutions for that gap – other than a hope that somebody with enough resources and insight to the value of Twitter for physicians can get a platform established.  Alternately – more networked and focused discussions on Blue Sky and Threads is still a possibility.  Either way – I think we need a functional blue bird back in one form or another….

 

Happy New Year!

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA 

Brandolini’s Law

There was an informative editorial in Nature this week by Phil Williamson - a scientific expert on ocean acidification.  I like the concept of bullshit and have referred to Professor Harry Frankfurt's classic essay on it many times.  I was not familiar with Brandolini's Law until I read the essay.  Simply stated:

Brandolini’s Law: “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”

It is also more simply known as the The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle.

Williamson uses a political example from a libertarian web site.  The central piece of that article was that ocean pH was not decreasing and that climate change would lead to reduced carbon dioxide in the oceans.   Because the climate is not changing there is no worry that the ocean pH would change.  The original publication denied Williamson's rebuttal.  An opinion piece in a professional journal led the author of libertarian piece to write online that his work should be "squashed like a slug".  Nothing like elite scientific dialogue is there?

In the UK there is apparently a press watchdog called UK Independent Press Standards Organization (IPSO).  Williamson filed a complaint with them about the factual accuracy of the piece and is awaiting their verdict.  He goes on to illustrate how Brandolini's Law comes in to play in this situation.  The original author these days can essentially be anyone from a journalist to a blogger.  He points out that online journalism "seems to be subject to few if any rules."  That leaves anyone in the position of responding to a factually inaccurate claim at a distinct disadvantage.  There may not be any formal complaint procedure and there is probably no editorial hierarchy.  Many web sites count on bloggers and writers to produce content that they can attach advertising to and this content seem to have very little oversight in terms of accuracy.  Much of this content on social web sites makes up what has been referred to as fake news.

Williamson's position is very clear.  He thinks that these inaccuracies need to be responded to and corrected.  He accurately points out that the audience for the correction is not the authors, but readers who are interested in accuracy and science.  I don't think that the division is that clear for a number of reasons.  A large number of people really don't care.  They are involved in the emotion generated by the issue and don't make decisions based on facts.  That general attitude is promulgated by the political process in most countries.  This is rarely a rational discussion of the main issues of the day.  I think this goes a lot deeper than generating rebuttals.  There needs to be education on the difference between science and everything else.  A good example is Creationist based rhetoric and the denial of evolution.  Creationist advocates do not seem to recognize that they are engaged in a process that is nothing like science and therefore cannot scientifically prove anything.  They fail to recognize the basic issue that science is a process and not an immutable collection of writings written by ancient prophets and subject to many interpretations.  That failure of recognition also leads to a failure to recognize that they are  completely outside the field of science. They fail to recognize where they are and that the best critics of a scientific theory are the scientists in the field.

This failure of recognition is much wider than Creationists.  Journalists produce many examples, not the least of which is a consistent bias against psychiatry.  That bias is present whether or not there is editorial oversight.  A great example is the journalistic tendency to propose what psychiatry is and then proceed to attack that straw man.  And interestingly these outsiders with no training in medicine or psychiatry are often joined by insiders pushing the same arguments.  In one case a prominent journal editor came out and endorsed an anti-psychiatry book, proclaiming legitimate criticism when in fact the book was rhetorical.  I would not presume that medical editors are without common biases.  There are many forces producing misinformation.

I diverge a bit with Williamson's approach on refuting the misinformation and hoping for the best.  I think that there are additional considerations.  One thing is very clear - the head-in-the-sand approach taken by physician professional organizations in response to misinformation is clearly not a good idea and is sure to lose in the current propaganda war of misinformation and political corruption.  If there is a lesson with the current Presidential campaign it is that there is a very small margin between a typical fact less campaign and one where anything at all can be said whether it is true of not - and nobody seems to care about it.

That is foreboding for all levels of public policy, especially when the political spoils includes being able to appoint agency heads with not only a lack of basic footing in science but also a lack of knowledge about what constitutes science.  For the country to run and maintain some standards in science, technology, and engineering there needs to be a basic understanding of these fields in all branches of government and at the highest levels.  There is currently no better example of what happens when the unscientific manage the store than what has happened to American medicine.  We are not only cursed by work rules that are made up as we go and have little to do with the practice of medicine, but we we have to live with pseudo-scientific management practices that affect our work flow and and detract from the lifelong task of learning the science of medicine.  A few strategies I can offer as a blogger follow.  I also have additional strategies that I am going to keep to myself until just the right time.

1.  Don't feel compelled to engage - Twitter is an excellent example of how this principle is applied. Suddenly you are being given the third degree by some poster. That turns into misinterpretations of your statements and positions and before you know it personal attacks.  But it doesn't stop there. A new account pops up and mysteriously continues the attack.  Call them trolls or whatever you like but recognize the tactic. They don't really care what you have to say and are quite happy to waste your time.  Don't engage. Twitter gives you the option to block them and that works the best.

2.  Present the facts but counter the rhetoric - It is important to recognize the common forms of rhetoric without being pedantic.  The best way to do that is by pointing out the erroneous aspects of the argument and the overall form without naming the fallacy.  This sounds easy and it should be - but physicians and psychiatrists seem to be spellbound at times by the simplest arguments.  One common example is anytime a business executive shows up and talks about "cost effectiveness" - everybody shuts down.  Nobody seems to understand that this is just business rhetoric.  It should be as obvious as the fact that with 30 years of intensive management and "cost effectiveness" - per capita health care costs are 40% higher than the country with the next highest per capita expenditures and health care is certainly no better.  In the case of treating mental illnesses and substance use disorders it is much worse.  Somebody needs to stand up and say: "We are doing our part - when are you going to start to do yours." or "Get out of the way and let us do our work." or "Give us the resources to provide the adequate service or shut it down."   Rationing is clearly a very ineffective and costly way to provide health care services.

3.  Recognize bullshit no matter where it comes from -  Many of the arguments for health care reform are just plain erroneous.  And why wouldn't they be.  We now have a continuous supply of what are essentially blogposts on the front of our most respected medical journals.  How could anyone expect that 12 or 52 health care reform ideas each year for years would be worth anything?  All of the top posts that they have been implemented like the electronic health record, managed care as business intermediaries for government purchasers, pharmaceutical benefit managers, creating various financial incentives - have all been progressively worse ideas.  Sifting through the misinformation to correct what is false, what are lies, and what is bullshit is a tedious but necessary task.  As long as medical journals legitimize this constant stream of unscientific information - countering it will remain an onerous task.  The sources of bullshit go far beyond blogs and traditional journalism.

4.  Don't let anyone define you - A common strategy these days is that detractors tend to jump in and set the stage with false criticism.  It was easy to see this in political debates.  In medicine and psychiatry the same process happens and I have pointed out the dynamic on this blog.  I also posted a recent summary of how the release of the DSM-5 was a major source of misinformation, lies, and bullshit in 2015 but there are many more examples in psychiatry.

5.  Don't let the barbarians at the gate get you down - I tell aspiring physicians and aspiring psychiatrists the same thing - don't let the detractors or in these days trolls - get you down.  Psychiatry is a tough field because there will always be a lot of people blaming you for their problems.  This is where Brandolini's Law really applies.  There are numerous dialogues on web sites available where the game is to post as much misinformation, bullshit and lies about psychiatry in particular.  Entire web sites exist for that purpose.  Entering into that discussion and taking the opposite side of the argument can be more futile than the Law suggests.  It may take several orders of magnitude of effort and even then it may be futile.  The best approach is to just get the information out there in cyberspace in an independent forum where you know that it can be safely viewed.   That is one of the reasons that this  blog exists.

6.  The Internet is still the Wild West and that will probably never change in its current form - Williamson suggests that it may be possible to "harness the collective power of the Internet to improve its quality."  He suggests the global scientific community reviewing sites and rating them like film rating sites.  I am far less optimistic.  The first problem is the scope of that project.  The second would be consistency in ratings.  The third is that a rating in some sense is legitimizing.  It is a far better approach to ignore the ignorant.  The reality is that reputation protection web sites basically work by generating a lot of information designed to bury the obnoxious web site.  Most people find that if they contact a search engine about a web site that may be slandering them that they are met with a a relatively hostile response and a complete lack of interest in correcting anything.  That is true for even the largest search engines.  Google for example, clearly doesn't give a damn about your reputation.

7.  Brandolini's Law is a significant deterrent to keeping professionals engaged in educating the public - Physicians certainly find this out in a hurry if they decide to post a rebuttal in political or media forums that are populated by the ignorant, trolls, or those with a specific agenda.  That is more true of psychiatrists than any other specialty.  That has a dual effect of limiting feedback to those who might be interested and eliminating the most informed criticism.  It also has the added effect of adding professionals who may have legitimate criticism to antipsychiatry web sites where scientific criticism is clearly not the agenda.  It is a dangerous path of least resistance when legitimate professionals start posting on web sites dedicated to the destruction of the profession.

 These are just a few ideas about Brandolini's Law.  I did not write the most important one down and that is you can always just go off the grid.  Even then there are problems.  I talked with a psychiatrist about 10 years ago who was asked to give presentations at local churches on depression.  He eventually gave up because there were people in the audience who for various reasons were so disruptive that it prevented him from giving the interested people the information that they wanted.  Only psychiatrists could end up being heckled in church.  Bullshit can be presented in person just as easily as is can by typed online.

Williamson refers to a "rising tide of populism threatens the future of evidence-based government."  I don't think that we have ever had evidence based government in the US.  I see it as mostly a power dynamic here - influencing people by emotional ideas and shouting them down.

The only reason why that Brandolini's Law doesn't work in reality in the case of psychiatry is that at the end of the day, there are still people with severe mental illness - no matter who tries to deny it and a group of people called psychiatrists who are interested in helping them.  That is not necessarily enough to prevent the widespread demoralization of a profession.        


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Reference:

1:  Phil Williamson.  Take the time and effort to correct misinformation.  Nature 8 December 2016; 540: 171.


Supplementary 1:

My brother saw this post and commented that Brandolini's Law has "never been more true."

I reflected on that true statement and the continued widespread ignorance of science and came up with the following observation that might have been made by Casey Stengel:

"Good science cancels out bullshit and vice versa."

That probably captures why misinformation grows as exponentially as scientific information in any society.  It levels the playing field (to some degree) between the informed and the uniformed.