The present iteration of conspirituality is defined by its online mediation. Frictionless space allows for unbounded charismatic reach and absolute, transcendent evasion of accountability. /1

Conspirituality themes of heroic individualism versus the cabal of control merge seamlessly with personal branding that pretends to outshine consensus reality. /2
Conspirituality and social media are now materially and economically parallel. In their first-order impacts, both monetize attention and emotional manipulation. But in the next ring out, both impact the material world in life-and-death ways. /3
Conspirituality can shift vaccine hesitancy, for example, while social media generally can disrupt IRL relationships and provoke addiction cycles and mental health crashes. And a thousand other things. /4
As with most online political activism, conspiritualists believe they are accomplishing something through that first-order dopamine loop. They’re not really building a world with posts, but social proof tells them they are. /5
It’s a problem that attention validation can stand in for the basic requirement to support what one is saying. Likes become a form of evidence for claims that always begin as trial balloons, and can remain so if they don’t fly. /6
Conspirituality isolates from all other forms of evidence or expertise: journalistic, academic, IRL activist. And yet because it’s only really spinning its wheels, I have to wonder how long an influencer can ride to nowhere. Isn't everyone vulnerable to ennui? /7
Perhaps the conspirituality fetish of organic gardening can confound this belief that online emotional provocation is creative. Perhaps the influencer will at some point wonder whether they have nurtured even one single material thing to grow. Besides COVID. /8
Even a single bean sprout. Or a single focused community action. Or just one secure relationship. Is this not the underlying drive, after all, twisted beyond recognition? /end

More from Health

You gotta think about this one carefully!

Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)

The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.

Your test comes back positive.

Are you really sick? Explain below 👇

The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through


You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.

👇


Here is what we know:

- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative

Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):

- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy

👇

Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:

▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)

▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)

👇

You May Also Like

First update to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL since the challenge ended – Medium links!! Go add your Medium profile now 👀📝 (thanks @diannamallen for the suggestion 😁)


Just added Telegram links to
https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL too! Now you can provide a nice easy way for people to message you :)


Less than 1 hour since I started adding stuff to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL again, and profile pages are now responsive!!! 🥳 Check it out -> https://t.co/fVkEL4fu0L


Accounts page is now also responsive!! 📱✨


💪 I managed to make the whole site responsive in about an hour. On my roadmap I had it down as 4-5 hours!!! 🤘🤠🤘