Of course, your slightly leading questions suggests a number of answers that on their face would seem to be valid areas of exploration (transparency, mistrust, lack of correct information). Even if we take those as a given, I suspect that it is confirmation bias ( justification of pre-conceived beliefs) and intellectual laziness that may be the primary catalysts. Intellectual laziness may be explained through peripheral rather than central route processing. It is hard to consider data and draw conclusions, it is easy to agree with the political authorities whom you have previously affiliated. To exacerbate the issue, typically there are scientists on both sides so picking among them once again asks for me to engage in difficult thinking.

Mahmoud Moghavvemi probably more interesting is your last two questions that can be summarized under what can be done about it? I am in a bit of a conundrum here because I have possible solutions with no chance of being adopted and a more likely solutions with little chance of being adopted. The problem is that it is extremely difficult to get irrational people to switch to rationality (central route processing).

So the first solution is to ask irrational people (irrationals) to be rational (think this through). The second is, since they are deferring to opinion leaders, have rational opposing opinion leaders help the irrationals with common issues where they agree on the solutions and opinions. THEN they can try to make headway on disagreed solutions ( the enhanced credibility may get some irrationals to switch who their opinion leaders are). I said it was weak, and also time-consuming. There is a third more dangerous solution, which is to have a charismatic leader show the way, but for every Gandhi and Martin Luther King jr. there is Hitler or Stalin.

Perhaps a fourth solution is not to have an individual at all but rather start a movement in which high-profile individuals (of all political parties) model not following party ideology lockstep and occasionally picking the science that seems more reasonable rather than the one that has the politicians self-interests. This post in and of itself may be part of the solution to those few who would consider rationality and perhaps that can start to gain some critical mass. Well done in bringing visibility to the problem as well as possibly contributing to the solution.

J. D. Wallace

Thank you very much for your excellent comments. I do hope that every one of us help to make the world a better place to live.

take care and stay safe.

Truth is the quality or state of being in accord with fact or reality. But, in more instances than we care to admit, truth is the property of beliefs and assertions, which means it is rarely a given. Post-truth, which is what this query refers to, is the Internet-fed despoliation by populist politicians and their allies (but, here and there, mainstream politicians too) of the fertile grounds that postmodern theories opened up. In the maelstrom of globalization, where people hanker for certainty, post-truth helps foment unrest to swing elections and divert political capital. Pre-Internet, Foucault contended that societies have "regimes of truth": he could not have imagined just how prescient he is now deemed to have been, post-Internet.

Because of the authority of some politicians. Still.

Dear Mahmoud Moghavvemi,

Why is it that some people listen to politicians more than the expert scientists and their own good common sense in dealing with COVID-19? The people who listen more to polictians than expert scientists and their own good common sense in dealing with COVID-19 can be people who have lost trust on the experts without sufficient reasons.

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

Because they are insisting to be followers not explorers

before Covid 19 doubts about the value of science and its results prevailed in many societies and was an irreversible trend. In recent months it seems to me that the prevailing trend is another: many governments justify their political choices on the basis of opinions expressed by scientific committees: Their choices are clearly contested but the size of the protest seems limited to me

The job of a politician is to convince his audience ,knowledge and being right do not matter-that is the purview of scientists who may or maynot be convincing !

Dear Mahmoud Moghavvemi , it's a great discussion, and we probably won't be able to reverse the situation immediately. I agree that the problem was already posed and was compounded by the context of the current pandemic. See in Brazil today there are more than 152 thousand deaths caused by the pandemic and the president of the republic encourages the crowding of people, does not use a mask, and discredits the vaccine. But his popularity even increased with this unfortunate situation, because he capitalized on the distribution of financial aid to the most vulnerable. Almost a perfect storm, people crave answers and solutions in the face of the situation and politicians take advantage of them based on motivated reasoning to spread their speeches. Unfortunately, motivated reasoning that is based on beliefs, ideologies, moral and religious values, is taking precedence over data, facts and science. As was said before even with the literate population, the question is what kind of education, did it promote critical thinking, tolerance, scientific literacies? And more recently with the expansion of social media, appropriated by populist politicians, how is education dealing with media and information literacy? I agree with the previous comments Renuka Malik , Remo Siza , Mohamed Buheji , Desalegn Abraha Gebrekidan . Arvydas Guogis , Olivier Serrat and J. D. Wallace , we still have a lot to do against such narratives manipulated by politicians and especially populists!

Sometimes, most of us want to hear what we want to hear, even though we consciously know that the reality is different from what we want. In the pattern of political communication, even to ourselves, we convince what we consciously know that something is bad for us is a good thing, and vice versa. Politics is more fun than the enjoyment of knowledge given to humans, history has proven a lot, not just this time, in the case of the Covid-19 pandemic, that politics results in war and bloodshed, and even legalizes occupation. Health politics has become a new trend apart from trade politics and space politics which have become public consumption.

in bahasa

terkadang, kebanyakan dari kita ingin mendengar apa yang ingin kita dengar, walau secara sadar kita tahu bahwa kenyataannya berbeda dari apa yang kita inginkan. Dalam pola komunikasi politik, bahkan terhadap diri kita sendiri, kita meyakinkan apa yang secara sadar bahwa sesuatu itu buruk bagi kita hal tersebut adalah sebuah kebaikan, dan sebaliknya. Politik lebih menyenangkan dari sekian kenikmatan pengetahuan yang diberikan pada manusia, sejarah telah banyak membuktikan, bukan kali ini saja, dalam kasus pandemi covid-19 ini, bahwa politik mengakibatkan perang dan pertumpahan darah, bahkan melegalisasi penjajahan. Politik Kesehatan telah menjadi trend baru selain dari politik dagang dan politik luar angkasa yang menjadi konsumsi publik.

I believe its mainly an educational problem

The simple reality is that scientists disagree.

Politicians and others with specific agendas like to pretend, and want us to believe that scientists are in agreement about COVID. No such agreement exists.

It's also important to understand, with regards to "the experts", that experts are chosen by politics, not by knowledge. For example: Who is the EXPERT on curing COVID-19? According to world statistics, millions of people have "Recovered" from COVID. But there is not a single recognized expert claim of "cured". What happens after a COVID patient is cured? Nothing. No expert dares to study the cured - the politics are too dangerous.“What Happens after a COVID-19 Cure?” by Tracy Kolenchuk https://link.medium.com/kBFW6wYVJab

Most people listen to politicians more than the experts because of the notion that people see politicians as source of truth even how subjective it is. They have become what Aristotle called as philosopher-kings. And sadly, opinion for most people is labeled as truth.

This is an education issue and a technological issue. With the internet and social media, we are become experts on every subject! So we know more than the experts on TV!

This is the definition of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

There is very good article on this link:https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201910/youre-really-not-smart-the-dunning-kruger-effect

Pandemic trying to catch up globally is a matter difficult to discern. The play of human hand is doubted, but proving is difficult. What caused the escape of virus and its spread raises suspicious questions. Why is it not getting localised defying solutions!! The situation needs coming together of all members of scientific community ; would it happen, when the world is divided on many many issues. Sad part is that humanity has not learnt any lesson from this episode!!@

The Covid-19 pandemic has become a real threat undercutting socioeconomic, health and human wellbeing to unimaginable height. Besides the above stated challenges, there is scanty global leadership and political will to organise ideas and resources, as transpired during previous pandemics like SARS and Ebola, to work toward stemming the disease. Expediently, and in the interest of selfishness, most politicians are exploiting their followers by peddling misinformation o

Dear All,

Why is it that some people listen to politicians more than the expert scientists and their own good common sense in dealing with COVID-19? I think what the politicians are saying is more important than what the expert scientists are saying as they can allocate all the necessary resources in order to be able to put into action wha the politicians are saying or recommending to be done. Whether we listen to them or not the expert scientists we will do what they consider to be a solution. That can be the reason why some people listen to politicians more than the expert scientists and their own good common senser in dealing with COOVID-19.

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

in reality, it is necessary to listen to both: science indicates the size of a phenomenon and several possible remedies; the politician must choose between the various alternatives

Dear Remo Siza,

It is correct people have to listen to both the politicians and the expert scientists, however the question asked was why people listen more to ploiticians rather than the expert scientists.

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

Politicians decide on our destinies, sometimes well, sometimes badly, and that's why we listen to them. While expert scientists put forward different hypotheses not always understandable

As Carlo Rovelli reminds us, science proceeds by trial and error. We must not confuse 'science' with the faces of some scientists who go on television or get interviewed to express opinions that are in fact political opinions on hot topics. It is nonsense thinking that science must know everything. It is foolish not to accept the limits of knowledge

I have been following the discussion about the above interesting question. Moreover, I have done some contribution in the discussion. However, I came now to some new ideas and that is what I want to present now. The reason why people listen more to politicians rather than expert scientists can be due to the fact that, the language which is used by politicians is easier to understnad and to follow. However, the expert scicentists use a technical knowlege which is not easy for the ordiniary citizen to follow and to understand.

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

Remo Siza

Thank you for your comments.

Scientist are not necessarily the one appearing in TV! Scientific community know their best. When comes to pandemic and best brain of the country advice is to wear mask and the politicians say don’t, we cannot follow both. There is limit to knowledge but only the knowledgeable knows about this limit.

have a good day.

take care and stay safe

It is much easier to understand the politicians language but not the language of scientists. They also have different audiences and those who listen to the mass media are very much interested in listening the simple language of the politicians.

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

Dear Sir..

I think the answer for your question is to Convince the experts in the field about what is called (COVID19) before the ordinary people, So many Scientists and medical doctors until now they suspect that disease, and in fact there are so many other diseases way more important and have higher rates of deaths annually, also there is no such a seasonal fluctuations in all what we had learned in our study. As a conclusion why we not consider it as a conspiracy !!!!!!!!

Dear All,

It is very interesting to read the ideas presented by the different researchers who are active here. At the beginning my understanding was a bit narrow, however I have now learned a lot from the ideas presented above by the various researchers.

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

Dear All,

Why is it that some people listen to politicians more than the expert scientists and their own good common sense in dealing with COVID-19? is a vey important discussion question. I have already tried to answer this question but I can still add. This can be due to the fact that expert scientists and their own good common sense in dealing with COVID-19 is mainly based on facts in facts and figures which is less attractive to some people. In contrast politicians present their views in a way that it can attract the ordinary people rather than helping them to deal with the problem and that becomes easier and attractive for some people.

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

Dear Participants,

I will appreciate it very much if more attempts are done to answer the question; Why is it that some people listen to politicians more than the expert scientists and their own good common sense in dealing with COVID-19?

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

Let's be clear. People don't "listen to politicians more than expert scientists". People generally hear what they want to hear. Politicians don't agree. There is little scientific difference between Democrats or Republicans - but they disagree with each other a lot and within their own ranks quite a bit. And scientists? By definition, scientists do not agree. Scientific studies are studies of disagreement. When there is agreement, there is no need for science.

In addition, half the politicians of every label are "below average" and the same can be said of half the scientists and also half of the "expert scientists".

Dear Dr Tracy Kolenchuk,

Thanks for presenting your ideas and I like your argument. However, you could relate it better to the question of; Why is it that some people listen to politicians more than the expert scientists and their own good common sense in dealing with COVID-19?

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

"Why is it that 'some people' do x? Because people are different. And that is good. Different people see different things. When everyone sees the same thing, we might as well all be blind. We learn from our differences, not from our agreements. We learn from our mistakes far more than from what we know to be true.

Why is it that some people listen to politicians more than the expert scientists and their own good common sense in dealing with COVID-19? is a good question and that is how life functions. Different people focus on different things and they make different choices. Consequently, some people listen to politicians more than the expert scientists and their own good common sense in dealing with COVID-19 and some other people can listen the expert scientists and their own good common sense than politicians in dealing with COVID-19. No body can change it and we have to accept it and to live with it.

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

I have given diversified answers to the question; Why is it that some people listen to politicians more than the expert scientists and their own good common sense in dealing with COVID-19? I want to make it clear to the reader that I am not contradicting or changing my views but I am trying to put here without any reservation any idea that comes to my mind.

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

Dear All,

It is very logical if different people listen to different groups of people with varying qualifications and experiences. It is very unrealistic that different people will listen to the same group of people.

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

In many countries, the fight against coronavirus shows the crucial role of science in informing policy. At the same time, the pandemic re-propose the need to identify a satisfactory interaction between common sense and scientific research. Scientific knowledge can take an active role in public discourse but, at the same time, it is necessary to keep a critical distance (Burawoy, 2005). Many leading experts have become opinion-makers: they propose comments that are not supported with data and combine rather casually general opinion and scientific knowledge not yet definitive.

Dear Remo Siza,

Thank you for your contributions above regarding the question; Why is it that some people listen to politicians more than the expert scientists and their own good common sense in dealing with COVID-19?

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

I want to say that too many times there is confusion. Many leading experts have become opinion-makers: they propose comments that are not supported with data and combine rather casually general opinion and scientific knowledge not yet definitive. This weakens the role of science and increases the credibility of politicians

Why is it that some people listen to politicians more than the expert scientists and their own good common sense in dealing with COVID-19? Irrepsective of the contents of their speech politicians can find it easier to present their ideas in a way that it can convince some poeple and that might possibly be the reason for some people to listen to the politicians than the expert scientists and thier own good common sense in dealing with COVID-19.

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

Dear Remo Siza,

I would like to thank you once again for adding an answer to the question; Why is it that some people listen to politicians more than the expert scientists and their own good common sense in dealing with COVID-19?

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

Dear Desalegn Abraha, thank you for your recommendations. The insecurity that science produces is perhaps inevitable in contemporary societies. The results of science are less and less stable: all aspects of human life are repeatedly examined and reformed in the light of incoming information produced by new research carried out in far parts of the world

Dear Remo Siza,

Thank you very much for adding an answer to the question; Why is it that some people listen to politicians more than the expert scientists and their own good common sense in dealing with COVID-19?

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

A very interesting question. I think it's because most supporters consider politicians as their very own; the people who show them direction. Many people believe and listen to politicians as part of showing support. This is why it would be very important to seek opinion shapers or influencers who are not aligned to any political divide to help push expert opinion

A resposta é simples: cegueira ideológica.

Pandemic is related with emotions for most of the people, and politicians may handle emotions well than any scientist, that may be the cause.

Dear Lucas Melgaço da Silva,

Please write in english otherwise we can not understand you.

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

Dear Rohit Kenge,

Your answer makes sense.

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

The relationship between academics and policymakers is always problematic. Academics are not a homogeneous community, and often they express contrasting technical opinions. In turn, policymakers have to assess: the feasibility of a technical solution, possibility to govern in the short, medium and long term conflicting public reaction, its financial cost.

Dear Remo Siza,

The question under discussion is that, Why is it that some people listen to politicians more than the expert scientists and their own good common sense in dealing with COVID-19? Although your answer is clear it doesn't directly address or answer the question under discussion. On my part I will appreciate it further if you develop it further to be able to answer the question clearly and directly.

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

in many cases, people are aware that political decisions, when they have faith in who to make a decision, take into account different and conflicting technical opinions and more general factors (social cohesion, feasibility, costs)

Dear Remo Siza,

Thnak you for writing further on the basis of my request to clarify your previous answer.

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

Essa questão ainda se mantém atual, pois assim como segue a pandemia, continuamos a observar pessoas "letradas" que insistem em contribuir para que haja um cenário de desinformações sobre essa situação. Há quem dê crédito a qualquer argumentação, mesmo que esta seja incoerente com a história, ou até mesmo, com a própria atualidade. Isso porque, para poder discernir sobre a credibilidade a ofertar deveriam ter condições de estabelecer fundamentos. No entanto, não se adquire fundamentação lendo rapidamente e superficialmente sobre qualquer assunto. É necessário dedicar-se para aprender sobre e só depois, poder apoiar determinada colocação. Ser "letrado" é pouco. Há de se andar ainda mais a buscar saber devidamente sobre um assunto, antes de dar crédito. O esforço de estudar e aprender sobre um assunto, ainda é muito precário, como se pode notar pelo que se tem visto e ouvido ser disseminado, em meios de comunicação que chegam as populações. É desses veículos que se servem políticos e interessados "letrados" em divulgar assuntos de interesse à população, sem considerar uma preocupação maior do que, a de conseguir adeptos. Importa é ter seguidores e nisso nem mesmo valores de vida, são considerados antes de divulgar uma falsidade. Talvez haja um problema de caráter pessoal, que constitui um perfil que antecede ainda, o problema da precariedade de aprendizagens.

Dear Dr Marlúbia Correa de Paula,

PLease write in English as I can't read understahd Spanish. Your postitive reaction will be highly appreciated.

Best Regards

Desalegn Abraha

As a social scientist who happens to be a citizen of a country torn apart by political polarization, that is watching democracy go down the drain, and that is being devastated by COVID-19, I keep asking myself questions much like yours, dear Mahmoud Moghavvemi . I can't see any easy nor short-term solution though. Actually, neither mid-term for that matter. I don't think this is simply a matter of helping people to understand what scientists are saying, nor helping political leaders to make better decisions. We are ruled by a man who boasts about being stupid and ignorant, whose followers do just the same, and seem very happy to embrace the most dangerous ideas. For instance, until last year, antivax groups in Brazil were so small that we didn't even notice them. Now they are growing and a poll made by a very popular newspaper showed that, in December, the number of people who didn't intend to get vaccinated had risen from 9% to 22%. That's a folk big enough to endanger the immunization even if we had enough doses. It's obvious to me that it has to do with a president who keeps undermining every effort to combat the disease and keeps attacking the vaccines with such stupid arguments as that China put microchips in the doses to control the rest of the world (as if they needed COVID vaccines to do that).

How did we end up here? I think only a huge, serious research effort could answer that question, but I would place my bet on the destruction of public education carried out by the military 50 years ago.

Sorry for such a long post that doesn't answer your questions, only adds a few more. That's what social scientists are for ;)

Johan Christensen in his recent article (2020) 'Expert knowledge and policymaking: a multi-disciplinary research agenda', Policy & Politics, asks: how much influence do experts actually have over public policies? Two critical aspects

First, existing literature is deeply fragmented. Expertise and policymaking are discussed under multiple headings - 'evidence-based policymaking', 'ideas and politics', 'epistemic communities', 'professions', etc. - and these different literatures rarely talk to each other. The lack of critical discussion across literatures has also left us with a range of concepts and theories that are difficult to study.

Second, existing work - especially the work on evidence-based policymaking - has often granted experts a special status as providers of neutral and apolitical evidence. Experts are not engaged in the dirty business of politics; they are simply informing public policies.

In addition, I permit myself to make the following suggestion:

Tom Nichols (2017) The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Technology and increasing levels of education have exposed people to more information than ever before. These societal gains, however, have also helped fuel a surge in narcissistic and misguided intellectual egalitarianism that has crippled informed debates on any number of issues. Today, everyone knows everything: with only a quick trip through WebMD or Wikipedia, average citizens believe themselves to be on an equal intellectual footing with doctors and diplomats. All voices, even the most ridiculous, demand to be taken with equal seriousness, and any claim to the contrary is dismissed as undemocratic elitism.

Politicians are crowd pullers. In such a crowd many of the people will not be able to social distance and wear masks.

Dear Mahmoud Moghavvemi , do I share the same feeling of surprise, how after so long with so much evidence people still deny themselves the real facts and scientific evidence? We cannot deny the impact that social media has given to the denialist and populist movements that are opposed to science. But such movements exploit the emotional triggers a lot and manage to disseminate the Fake News that sediment the movement against Science. I think that there is no single answer to the problem, but among several actions to combat or reduce damages, it would be to improve the communication of science that can improve the perception of science by the population. As well as it is past time for curricula to modernize and include contemporary issues such as digital literacy, media literacy, hate speech aimed at reducing people's vulnerability in media consumption.

Once the politicians establish they can be believed, they get more tyrannical and demand many more things. In that task they have lots of money to back them up from the big Pharma industry (rumoured profits so far are 28 trillion $).

One thing they have to remember: avoid publicizing the adverse effects of the experimental vaccines.

Unfortunately, there is a new TV channel in Greece devoted to these adverse effects and you will be amazed how many are affected or dead.

Today the assistant PM of Greece declared: We decide, not the doctors! We don't even consult doctors.

The proof is now available: it doesn't matter if you are vaccinated or not, you can still get re-infected and you can transmit more than the unvaccinated. The whole exercise is therefore a big Zero. In the meantime, the vaccinated get cancer from the heavy metals and magnets found to be inside the vaccines by Professor Andreas Rallis.

In my opinion, in a highly individualized society, which promotes the individual solution of collective risks, empirical evidence of the efficacy of a care relationship is frequently constructed individually by recomposing scrapbooks of scientific knowledge, subjective experiences and quick comparisons in networks of distant individuals.

My view is that Politicians are believed more because they project themselves as 'custodians' of solutions to the people's problems by propagating stories which are imbued with slogans. Equally, politicians adopt PR techniques in communicating with the public without genuinely believing in the message. Conversely, the scientist has no time for such PR schemes, but is preoccupied to deliver his findings and message directly without political 'flavours'/manipulations.

Mr. Mahmoud Moghavvemi

I think it is because they have a very small universe

of understanding or a great intention to profit from

incorrect decisions.

Best regards

Marlúbia