Introduction: Welcome to the Age of Overconfidence
Over the last few years, it seems like a new type of self-proclaimed expert is taking over the internet: armchair scientists who confidently share misinformation without understanding the science (or lack thereof) behind their claims. The rise of social media, combined with the inability of the general public to read and interpret scientific studies, increasingly leads to false narratives and misinformation being shared at an alarming rate. It is time to start challenging these misinterpretations and promoting real facts. It’s time to start questioning everything instead of blindly believing.
Unwellness is here to do just that.
The Armchair Scientist Phenomenon
First things first, what exactly do I mean when I say “armchair scientist”? Well, the typical armchair scientist is someone who has no formal training in any field of science, but is kind of ok at using google. They are not capable of understanding research or scientific literature, but they can almost certainly find a study with an abstract that they can misinterpret to support their narrative. They never read the full study of course, and they have no understanding of confounding variables, or the context and nuance that scientific research requires. They will provide a summary from Chat GPT as supporting evidence for any claim they care to make (we will investigate why this is problematic in a future blog post).
One only needs to turn on the news or open social media to see several prime examples of these armchair experts. Some are just your average Facebook or Tiktok user, who’s posts are seen by very few people and may not have much of an impact. Others are running entire countries and have a much larger platform, which is far more problematic. How many terrified mothers-to-be are now questioning whether or not they should use Tylenol to treat their fevers and pains?
Perhaps the most noticeable upward shift in the number of armchair scientists happened during the height of the COVID pandemic, with misinformation, distrust and "alternative facts" spreading like wildfire, as observed by The Conversation.
Misinformation Moves Faster Than Facts
Much of the scientific misinformation we see being shared on social media is presented in a way that creates shock and outrage. A calm, fact based headline is simply not going to get the same reaction. Sensationalist headlines and extreme claims, such as “paracetamol causes autism”, provoke knee-jerk reactions and as a result, people are often hitting the “share” button before even reading the article or checking the source. People on both sides begin arguing in the comments section. Even people who disagree with a misinformed media article will share it on their own page. They may add in a caption explaining why the claims made are incorrect, but as far as the algorithm is concerned, a share is a share, an angry react is still a react and a comment is a comment, and all of these interactions push these posts further up the algorithm and in front of more readers.
Adding further fuel to this fire, is a phenomenon known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, in other words, “the less people know, the more they think they know”. People think that they understand complex topics after reading a basic article, and their lack of understanding means that they are incapable of seeing just now little they actually know. This leads armchair scientists to share misleading claims with conviction and confidence, and they are rewarded by the algorithm, further confirming their cognitive bias.
David Dunning discussed this overconfidence on the OpenMind podcast.
Scientific Illiteracy: Reading Abstracts ≠ Understanding Studies
Sometimes you will come across an armchair scientist who gives the illusion of being educated and knowledgeable by referencing scientific studies that seem to back up their claims.
However, on closer inspection, it often becomes obvious that they have read only the abstract of the study they are discussing, and often only the parts that support their claims.
But abstracts are designed to summarise findings. They don’t go into detail about methodology, limitations, sample sizes, statistical analysis or anything else. They are useful for giving the reader enough information to determine whether they might like to read the full study, and should be read in the same way that you would read the blurb on the back of a fictional novel. It’s not the same as reading the whole book.
Often legitimate scientific studies are behind a paywall, with only the abstract available unless you pay, or you have an academic subscription that allows you access. The average armchair scientist is unlikely to be paying to access these articles, and even if they did, scientific literature is not an easy read for the untrained eye. Scientifically illiterate readers, on a mission to misinform, tend to cherry-pick phrases that support their ideals without providing context, they mistake correlation for causation, disregard sample sizes and ignore limitations. They don’t realise that studies often contradict each other, and that collecting a body of information is important. After all, science is a process, not a fixed or static encyclopaedia of truths.
Critically evaluating research and studies is important, and without this ability, armchair scientists will try to use science as a weapon, rather than a tool for understanding.
Why This Matters
This kind of scientific misinformation is more than just annoying. Spreading and sharing incorrect information and advice, particularly when it relates to health or safety concerns, is dangerous. Real world consequences like vaccine hesitancy, using unsafe “home treatments”, refusing conventional medicine and more, are a fast growing problem. Just look at the current measles outbreaks, and the constant talk in recent weeks about the safety of acetaminophen.
Vulnerable people trying to make informed decisions are struggling to find the information they need and are often left confused and anxious as they try to navigate the sea of confident voices with no expertise. It’s a heavy emotional toll, especially for people navigating pregnancy, illness, or neurodivergence.
When it comes to healthcare, misinformation can be fatal, and the louder these overconfident voices become, the harder it gets for real experts to be heard. My aim with Unwellness.blog is to empower you to think critically, challenge nonsense and find correct information.
What Unwellness Stands For
Cutting through the noise of armchair science and empowering the average person to critically evaluate online claims about healthcare, science and anything else. Misinformation spreads faster than facts, but I would love to see that change. In order to achieve this goal, we need more curiosity, more skepticism, and more patience. Don’t believe everything you read, don’t fall for the line “this study proves…”, and question everything, including this blog and including me.
Lets make educated and informed the next wellness trend.
Further Reading
How to Read a Scientific Paper
How to Read and Evaluate a Scientific Paper For Non-Scientists
