“Beware of Self-Appointed Experts: who anointed them anyway?”

Self-labeled “researchers” and “investigators”

Courtesy of QuoteFancy

Scientific Research:
When I think of a researcher, I instantly think of my dear friend, Robert Bogden, a scientist, who was part of the team that discovered the genes causing breast cancer: BRCA1 and BRCA2¹, ² , ³ , ⁴ I am in awe of the meticulous research, methodology, wet lab bench work and testing⁵ that was involved to identify, characterize and develop diagnostic tools for these genes. The research performed to make these discoveries takes years and teams of people.

Recently, another friend, Dr. Jason Shepherd, made the astonishing discovery of Arc proteins that behave like virus’s infecting cells releasing capsids from one neuron to another, sharing RNA. This breaking discovery has implications in Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline in aging, and/or can be harnessed for developing treatments.⁶^, ⁷^, ⁸

It’s stunning to imagine a cure for Alzheimer’s Disease!

There is no comparing these scientific researchers to the hobbyist/online clicker searching for any material online that confirms their bias’s.

Confirmation Bias⁹ ,¹⁰^, is not comparable to scientific theory.¹¹^, ¹²

When the internet first became readily available to the public at large, I cheered. I thought “what a wonderful tool to enhance the knowledge and ensure a ‘well educated society.’” I didn't understand the glaring gap in our educational process regarding critical thinking and analysis.

Please evaluate a self-proclaimed researcher’s methodology, analysis, and sources. A red flag could be if they only provide a snippet of material garnered online. Some questions you could ask: Was this material taken out of context? Did they provide the source to the entire article or source? Was there other, possibly alternating facts and opinions presented? Question the assumptions made by the self-proclaimed expert? Given the same methodology and tested research would you come to the same opinion and conclusion? Do you have more questions? Then, always evaluate your own confirmation bias.¹³ ^, ¹⁴^, ¹⁵

One important confirmation bias I’d like to highlight is called, Apophenia.

Apophenia is the tendency to perceive patterns in random occurrences.¹⁶

Apophenia is a term used to describe the human behavior of finding meaning in instances where no such meaning exists. Another term for apophenia is patternicity.¹⁷

WARNING! THE FOLLOWING IS ABSOLUTE JUNK. DO NOT TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT OR SAY I’M REALLY QUESTIONING THIS. THIS IS GOBBLY-GOOK USED TO ILLUSTRATE APOPHENIA:

An example of Apophenia, would be:  The majority of the teenager abusers who abused younger children in the neighborhood where I grew up, had draft numbers^. ¹⁸^, ¹⁹^, ²⁰  The uncertainty of the draft and going to war in Vietnam caused those teenage perpetrators to act out.

WARNING! THE ABOVE IS ABSOLUTE JUNK. DO NOT TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT OR SAY I WAS ACTUALLY ASKING THIS QUESTION. THIS IS GOBBLY-GOOK USED TO ILLUSTRATE APOPHENIA.

I hope it’s obvious why that is an example of Apophenia. Do you know what would need to be done to do to prove that assertion? Test studies with a large group²¹ of men who had draft numbers, fifty years ago. A test group of convicted felons who had draft numbers also fifty years ago—to start with. This is ridiculous claim and an example of Apophenia—trying to create a connection or a pattern to something that doesn’t exist.

The reason I’m pointing this one out, is I’ve seen examples of apparent Apophenia connections from some of these online “researchers.”  Please don’t blindly believe everything they say.

Legal Arguments, Evidence and Verdicts
If the investigation is simply for a judge or jury in our judicial system, there is also a rigorous process to present evidence and analysis. Here is a brief outline of the minimum standards required in the arduous process that must be done for legal assertions.²²

Investigative Journalism
There are those who claim they are merely investigative journalists. For even those professionals, there are minimum standards, which are quite extensive. Here is an example and a brief outline of the minimum standards of investigative journalism:²³

Example for an Investigative Report (Workplace Incident Report)

Additionally, there is a PDF entitled “Story-Based Inquiry: a Manual for Investigative Journalists.”²⁴  Of significance is Chapter 6, “Fact Checking” on page 76. An additional poignant area to review is Chapter 7, “Checking your ethics.”

193078eng

1.95MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Finally, “Could we possibly harm vulnerable groups in online research, unwittingly?”²⁵

“Rule number one is to ensure that the researched participants (the vulnerable populations) are empowered in their own representations and given agency in their interactions with researchers.”²⁶

Summary:
As the reader of any self declared “researchers” and/or “investigators” if the material published does not meet the minimum criteria listed above, please be skeptical of the allegations and assertions presented. If “Apophenia” is in play, ignore it. As Matthew Wright states in the The problem with self-appointed online experts:

“I suspect the underlying force driving the whole phenomenon, certainly online, is self-validation: people hook their self-worth to their assumed status in a field of interest, and the internet has provided a vehicle that is essentially cost-free when it comes to poor behaviours.”²⁷

In the name of research and/or investigating, even a hobbyist can damage innocents. Some engage in DARVO justifications for their inept and shoddy “reporting” and “techniques.”  Be wary of self-appointed experts and self-labeled “researchers” or “investigators”, as they might do more harm than good.

Remember the quote cited in, Beware of Self-Appointed Experts: Who Anointed Them, Anyway?²⁸

“In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King” — Erasmus of Rotterdam²⁹

1. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/genetics/brca-fact-sheet

2. https://www.genome.gov/Genetic-Disorders/Breast-Cancer

3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/

4. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/reliability-vs-validity/

5. https://rdcu.be/dNQjY

6. This is a “lay” person’s attempt to explain this groundbreaking discovery.

7. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/memory-gene-goes-viral

8. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/viruses-can-cause-great-harm-but-we-could-not-live-without-them-feature/

9. https://www.simplypsychology.org/confirmation-bias.html

10. https://www.berkeleywellbeing.com/confirmation-bias.html

11. https://direct.mit.edu/posc/article/31/5/535/115648/Methodological-and-Cognitive-Biases-in-Science

12. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/27956/chapter-abstract/211544661?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

13. https://www.verywellmind.com/cognitive-biases-distort-thinking-2794763

14. https://www.forbes.com/sites/iese/2021/06/16/avoiding-echo-chambers-5-strategies-to-beat-confirmation-bias/

15. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-confirmation-bias-2795024

16. https://www.verywellmind.com/apophenia-does-everything-happen-for-a-reason-8656889

17. Ibid

18. https://www.historynet.com/whats-your-number/

19. https://www.usatoday.com/vietnam-war/draft-picker/

20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_draft

21. For a ludicrous claim such as this, the test groups would probably need to be in the hundreds if not thousands of men.

22. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/what-is-an-investigation-report-and-how-7842783/

23. https://www.caseiq.com/resources/ultimate-guide-to-writing-investigation-reports/

24. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000193078.nameddest=193103

25. https://www.hiig.de/en/when-online-research-can-do-harm/

26. Ibid

27. https://mjwrightnz.wordpress.com/2022/04/30/the-problem-with-self-appointed-online-experts/

28. https://hrzone.com/blog/beware-of-self-appointed-experts/

29. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Erasmus-Dutch-humanist