Freedom of expression is the foundation a free society. Though codified in our Constitution, protecting it requires our participation. (audio track included)
I cancelled my paid subscription to "News from Those Nerdy Girls" this morning. Substack allows one to explain the reasons to the authors. Here it is:
"Dear Nerdy Girls authors, you have banned me from leaving comments on your articles. Though I left comments critical of your approach to certain topics, they were respectful and were offered in a spirit to encourage dialogue. The "100 year ban" was initiated without any warning or explanation from you.
Not only have you misrepresented the benefits of a paid subscription to your publication, it runs counter to the values you espouse on your page. You have every right to do as you please, but what you are doing here is emblematic of a much bigger systemic problem: dissenting opinions are removed from conversation and people arrive at the false sense of consensus. This is antithetical to all scientific pursuits.
I am a physician and an engineer. I too am a substack author and have recently written about your latest post and the ban you have imposed. I encourage you to comment on it. Doing so will also allow you to address those who disagree with you; it's an opportunity to communicate with what should be your target audience.
You don't have to pay to leave a comment on any of my content. I am committed to invite all dissenting voices without insisting on a fees of any kind.
A contradiction in terms if I ever saw one. You're either a 'specialist' or a 'generalist.' There's nothing in between.
As for conspiracy theories, how can you tell the difference between an unfounded or a legitimate belief unless you investigate the actual subject of the belief, and to do that would require a much larger, much better qualified group of researchers than a bunch of self-aggrandizing "nerdy girls."
To me, this is emblematic of how far the social sciences have fallen in the last few decades. To even call it science is an insult to actual scientists.
Heh. An old joke comes to mind from back in the day when people could still laugh about gender differences without unleashing a malignant personality eruption in others:
"If a man, is standing alone, in an empty field, with no one else around, is he still wrong?"
Is it not ironic how our self-appointed saviors keep validating Orwell's most compelling observations about the future to come?
"It was always the women, above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and the nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” — George Orwell
Powerful article - thank you MD, a gentle, fair, informative & honest analogy. I believe Truth is recognized - it comes from within where Spirit lives. I am drawn & intuitively feel truth & most times, know when lies are spoken/written. Your article is one of the most balanced views I've read. I thank you deeply - I believe our Creator lives in the Truth & the Light of Truth will come to pass, in part, due to people such as you ...
I appreciate Those Nerdy Girls efforts to lift up women’s voices in science. Women are under-represented in the field and still are paid less than their male colleagues.
TNGs stated values—a desire to seek out opinions of others and promote rational, evidence based thinking—are commendable. Unfortunately when they wrestle with conspiracies, those values go flying out the window.
If it’s a conspiracy, ipso facto it must be false. No need for evidence and who cares about alternative opinions.
If NIST says WTC7 fell because of office fires and a single column failure, evidence of it falling like a rock doesn’t need to be examined. No need to look at University of Alaska’s 4 year study that concluded It didn’t collapse due to fire. It’s a conspiracy so the case is closed.
The same reasoning applies to things labeled a covid conspiracy. Pfizer’s own clinical trials showed higher all cause mortality for those receiving the vaccine, but thankfully that evidence doesn’t need to be considered because it falls in the bucket ‘conspiracy’.
I really appreciate this article, your thought and your huge capacity to think through things compassionately with others holding opposing views. I strive for your equipoise but am no where close. Your 100 year ban a loss for all of us: Those Nerdy Girls, you and the readers.
We're in an information war, and one of the tactics is that they pretend to be us.
MSM doesn't have the absolute power over public opinion that it used to enjoy before their lies got bigger and the internet made them more obvious. But people's belief in MSM as a reliable source of truth is not completely gone by any means.
The world of independent media and a free internet offers a challenge to their narrative control, and they're meeting that challenge by infiltrating "independent" news and social media. We have a pressing need for search engines and distribution networks that are uncorrupted. The truths that we have to tell are intrinsically hard to accept, and that's an unavoidable challenge. But censorship, shadow-banning, and throttling our "freedom of reach" are unnecessary impediments, and it is up to us to build a robust information ecosystem so that we can continue to communicate with one another and reclaim the exponential potential of internet news.
Incredible and common. Did you at least get your money back? I can't believe this can continue, unless, as Michael Nehls argues in his The Indoctrinated Brain the vaccines are changing the brain, making people stupid. His position is backed by neuro-molecular biological data, which is Greek to me. Love you to look at it and offer your view. Love you anyway Maha Madhava.
You have a stronger constitution for tolerating nausea than I would. They epitomize this leftist wokist BS devoid of critical faculties that seems to be everywhere.
And as regards 'conspiracy beliefs' - do humans not conspire for their own gain/aggrandizement?
Is history literally not a litany of one conspiracy after another?
Thank you Madhava Setty. That was such an erudite and succinct assessment of the First Amendment and how woke type people react to reason and truth. You do much better than I do.
I became an unpaid member of your site because of Joe Martino. I've followed Joe since he started Collective Evolution. Joe is awesome, and I quote him often. Now I have another higher source of truth, and not just truth. You and Joe are true thinkers and great leaders of the lost souls. Thank you, Sandi
The thing about leftists is that they can not tolerate any dissent. Their entire worldview is built in the sands of lies told over and over again amongst themselves thinking that their lies are the truth and reality. However the wave of reality will always wash away the world they build because its nit built upon the rock of truth and reality. The debris is always the lives and fortunes of the poor and middle class. The elites never suffer from their lies. Understand this and you will be able to deal with their lies more effectively.
It is interesting to note this trigger reaction that some writers/commentators seem to have....how they immediately just cancel someone who challenges their point of view, without any conversation or discussion. I personally believe it's because the issues we bring up challenge their world view, and perhaps even their whole psyche, to such an extent that they just have to shut it down, or they might implode. And, yet, perhaps you have helped to create a small crack through which a bit of light can make its way through. Keep commenting. It takes time for the layers of programming, propoganda, etc, to peel away. I know that I am still having a-ha moments and realizing there's more and more and more to uncover.
You are kind and intrepid, Madhava!! You go boldly where no one should want to go! No, seriously, this is a wonderful musing by you. Full of grace and generosity. I subscribed to the YLE Substack on your mentioning of it. I will now subscribe, but not pay for, these nerdy head girls. I am so happy they call themselves girls, so I can.
The principle quote from Sara Gorman (one of the girls)'s piece is classic and ominous and clueless. It "suggests". Quisling academic posturing. Say it is so or it ain't so. Don't "suggest". "the study needs to be repeated". Further study needed. More gov't grants or perhaps grants from philanthrophy. Keep the research funds flowing. Then she wipes away critical thinking and hypothesis generation, which she calls conspiracy theory, and "suggests" it may not be a real phenomenon. "Interventions", ie censorship, propaganda and nudges funded by "grants", might be capable of grooming everyone into one way of seeing things. And it will all be so rational. Until it isn't.
Have they not read about diversity and it's crucial role in survival. We need diversity of thought in order to survive. That's about all free speech does. Not much more.
So the question for behavioral sociology is, why is there an explosion of youngish professional women so sure conspiracy theories are completely anathematic to civilized conversations about cause and effect in a complicated world. Where are they coming from?
From Sara Gorman as you quote.
“This suggests that this kind of study needs to be repeated. In the meantime, we should check our beliefs that conspiracy thinking is a permanent phenomenon and start to entertain the notion that these ideas could be more fluid than we thought. If this is the case, it opens up the possibility of more successful interventions to change conspiracy thinking. If we can understand when and how conspiracy beliefs tend to change, we can target interventions to help people transition away from these beliefs at times when their thought patterns are prone to change. This would be a great boon to our efforts to promote rational, evidence-based thinking across the population.”
A 100-year ban for a polite question! What massive hypocrites these people are. This happened to me a few times on FB in 2020, and funnily enough, once on a local influencer doctor’s page, when I was Covid-narrative dissenting (for a change), yet still believing, in those first few months, that I’d get a reasonable response to my reasonable questions. Nope! Blocked! Banned! Later she sent me an email apologizing for having to block me from her page and that it wasn’t my fault that I didn’t understand “basic science, statistics and math.” It’s absolutely amazing that she wrote all that (and worse) for a whole host of reasons. I will have to write a post about it soon. Thanks for telling us this ludicrous story.
I cancelled my paid subscription to "News from Those Nerdy Girls" this morning. Substack allows one to explain the reasons to the authors. Here it is:
"Dear Nerdy Girls authors, you have banned me from leaving comments on your articles. Though I left comments critical of your approach to certain topics, they were respectful and were offered in a spirit to encourage dialogue. The "100 year ban" was initiated without any warning or explanation from you.
Not only have you misrepresented the benefits of a paid subscription to your publication, it runs counter to the values you espouse on your page. You have every right to do as you please, but what you are doing here is emblematic of a much bigger systemic problem: dissenting opinions are removed from conversation and people arrive at the false sense of consensus. This is antithetical to all scientific pursuits.
I am a physician and an engineer. I too am a substack author and have recently written about your latest post and the ban you have imposed. I encourage you to comment on it. Doing so will also allow you to address those who disagree with you; it's an opportunity to communicate with what should be your target audience.
You don't have to pay to leave a comment on any of my content. I am committed to invite all dissenting voices without insisting on a fees of any kind.
Sincerely,
Madhava Setty, MD"
"A group of 23 multidisciplinary specialists"
A contradiction in terms if I ever saw one. You're either a 'specialist' or a 'generalist.' There's nothing in between.
As for conspiracy theories, how can you tell the difference between an unfounded or a legitimate belief unless you investigate the actual subject of the belief, and to do that would require a much larger, much better qualified group of researchers than a bunch of self-aggrandizing "nerdy girls."
To me, this is emblematic of how far the social sciences have fallen in the last few decades. To even call it science is an insult to actual scientists.
Heh. An old joke comes to mind from back in the day when people could still laugh about gender differences without unleashing a malignant personality eruption in others:
"If a man, is standing alone, in an empty field, with no one else around, is he still wrong?"
Is it not ironic how our self-appointed saviors keep validating Orwell's most compelling observations about the future to come?
"It was always the women, above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and the nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” — George Orwell
Powerful article - thank you MD, a gentle, fair, informative & honest analogy. I believe Truth is recognized - it comes from within where Spirit lives. I am drawn & intuitively feel truth & most times, know when lies are spoken/written. Your article is one of the most balanced views I've read. I thank you deeply - I believe our Creator lives in the Truth & the Light of Truth will come to pass, in part, due to people such as you ...
I appreciate Those Nerdy Girls efforts to lift up women’s voices in science. Women are under-represented in the field and still are paid less than their male colleagues.
TNGs stated values—a desire to seek out opinions of others and promote rational, evidence based thinking—are commendable. Unfortunately when they wrestle with conspiracies, those values go flying out the window.
If it’s a conspiracy, ipso facto it must be false. No need for evidence and who cares about alternative opinions.
If NIST says WTC7 fell because of office fires and a single column failure, evidence of it falling like a rock doesn’t need to be examined. No need to look at University of Alaska’s 4 year study that concluded It didn’t collapse due to fire. It’s a conspiracy so the case is closed.
The same reasoning applies to things labeled a covid conspiracy. Pfizer’s own clinical trials showed higher all cause mortality for those receiving the vaccine, but thankfully that evidence doesn’t need to be considered because it falls in the bucket ‘conspiracy’.
I really appreciate this article, your thought and your huge capacity to think through things compassionately with others holding opposing views. I strive for your equipoise but am no where close. Your 100 year ban a loss for all of us: Those Nerdy Girls, you and the readers.
We're in an information war, and one of the tactics is that they pretend to be us.
MSM doesn't have the absolute power over public opinion that it used to enjoy before their lies got bigger and the internet made them more obvious. But people's belief in MSM as a reliable source of truth is not completely gone by any means.
The world of independent media and a free internet offers a challenge to their narrative control, and they're meeting that challenge by infiltrating "independent" news and social media. We have a pressing need for search engines and distribution networks that are uncorrupted. The truths that we have to tell are intrinsically hard to accept, and that's an unavoidable challenge. But censorship, shadow-banning, and throttling our "freedom of reach" are unnecessary impediments, and it is up to us to build a robust information ecosystem so that we can continue to communicate with one another and reclaim the exponential potential of internet news.
Incredible and common. Did you at least get your money back? I can't believe this can continue, unless, as Michael Nehls argues in his The Indoctrinated Brain the vaccines are changing the brain, making people stupid. His position is backed by neuro-molecular biological data, which is Greek to me. Love you to look at it and offer your view. Love you anyway Maha Madhava.
You have a stronger constitution for tolerating nausea than I would. They epitomize this leftist wokist BS devoid of critical faculties that seems to be everywhere.
And as regards 'conspiracy beliefs' - do humans not conspire for their own gain/aggrandizement?
Is history literally not a litany of one conspiracy after another?
Thank you Madhava Setty. That was such an erudite and succinct assessment of the First Amendment and how woke type people react to reason and truth. You do much better than I do.
I became an unpaid member of your site because of Joe Martino. I've followed Joe since he started Collective Evolution. Joe is awesome, and I quote him often. Now I have another higher source of truth, and not just truth. You and Joe are true thinkers and great leaders of the lost souls. Thank you, Sandi
The thing about leftists is that they can not tolerate any dissent. Their entire worldview is built in the sands of lies told over and over again amongst themselves thinking that their lies are the truth and reality. However the wave of reality will always wash away the world they build because its nit built upon the rock of truth and reality. The debris is always the lives and fortunes of the poor and middle class. The elites never suffer from their lies. Understand this and you will be able to deal with their lies more effectively.
Conspiracy thinking?
So, I guess they don't even know what the word means?
They don't believe in conspiracies? Conspiracies happen
all the time. Every second of every day.
conspiracy
kən-spîr′ə-sē
noun
An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
A group of conspirators.
An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime
or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
The used car salesmen are a group of conspirators
Excellent article Mr. Setty.
You give Dear Nerdy Girls more respect and humility than they deserve
It is interesting to note this trigger reaction that some writers/commentators seem to have....how they immediately just cancel someone who challenges their point of view, without any conversation or discussion. I personally believe it's because the issues we bring up challenge their world view, and perhaps even their whole psyche, to such an extent that they just have to shut it down, or they might implode. And, yet, perhaps you have helped to create a small crack through which a bit of light can make its way through. Keep commenting. It takes time for the layers of programming, propoganda, etc, to peel away. I know that I am still having a-ha moments and realizing there's more and more and more to uncover.
Brilliant article! You ticked all my boxes :-)
You are kind and intrepid, Madhava!! You go boldly where no one should want to go! No, seriously, this is a wonderful musing by you. Full of grace and generosity. I subscribed to the YLE Substack on your mentioning of it. I will now subscribe, but not pay for, these nerdy head girls. I am so happy they call themselves girls, so I can.
The principle quote from Sara Gorman (one of the girls)'s piece is classic and ominous and clueless. It "suggests". Quisling academic posturing. Say it is so or it ain't so. Don't "suggest". "the study needs to be repeated". Further study needed. More gov't grants or perhaps grants from philanthrophy. Keep the research funds flowing. Then she wipes away critical thinking and hypothesis generation, which she calls conspiracy theory, and "suggests" it may not be a real phenomenon. "Interventions", ie censorship, propaganda and nudges funded by "grants", might be capable of grooming everyone into one way of seeing things. And it will all be so rational. Until it isn't.
Have they not read about diversity and it's crucial role in survival. We need diversity of thought in order to survive. That's about all free speech does. Not much more.
So the question for behavioral sociology is, why is there an explosion of youngish professional women so sure conspiracy theories are completely anathematic to civilized conversations about cause and effect in a complicated world. Where are they coming from?
From Sara Gorman as you quote.
“This suggests that this kind of study needs to be repeated. In the meantime, we should check our beliefs that conspiracy thinking is a permanent phenomenon and start to entertain the notion that these ideas could be more fluid than we thought. If this is the case, it opens up the possibility of more successful interventions to change conspiracy thinking. If we can understand when and how conspiracy beliefs tend to change, we can target interventions to help people transition away from these beliefs at times when their thought patterns are prone to change. This would be a great boon to our efforts to promote rational, evidence-based thinking across the population.”
Sorry, but they sound like another group of woke people who believe in diverse opinions only if they agree with theirs
A 100-year ban for a polite question! What massive hypocrites these people are. This happened to me a few times on FB in 2020, and funnily enough, once on a local influencer doctor’s page, when I was Covid-narrative dissenting (for a change), yet still believing, in those first few months, that I’d get a reasonable response to my reasonable questions. Nope! Blocked! Banned! Later she sent me an email apologizing for having to block me from her page and that it wasn’t my fault that I didn’t understand “basic science, statistics and math.” It’s absolutely amazing that she wrote all that (and worse) for a whole host of reasons. I will have to write a post about it soon. Thanks for telling us this ludicrous story.