According to its presenter on Wednesday, Aaron Rodgers, the quarterback for the New York Jets, would not be making an appearance on ESPN’s “The Pat McAfee Show” during the NFL season. Rodgers had recently hinted that comedian Jimmy Kimmel had a sinister relationship with the late alleged pedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
“Season 4 of ‘Aaron Rodgers Tuesday’ is finished,” McAfee declared. “To be honest, I think that will make a lot of people happy, myself included.” However, Rodgers returned to McAfee’s show the following day.
In regard to court records pertaining to Epstein that were set to be released, Rodgers had stated last week, “There’s a lot of people, including Jimmy Kimmel, who’s really hoping that doesn’t come out.” There was no list containing Kimmel’s name in relation to Epstein.
In his opening monologue on ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” on Monday night, Kimmel stated, “Either he actually believes my name was going to be on Epstein’s list, which is insane, or the more likely scenario is he doesn’t actually believe that; he just said it because he’s mad at me for making fun of his topknot and his lies about being vaccinated.” Rodgers notably claimed in 2021 that he had received homeopathic therapy and was so “immunized” against Covid-19.
People who haven’t been following Rodgers’ rise to public prominence or the direction of American politics may wonder why a well-known NFL quarterback would have such strong views about vaccination alternatives and about to be released Epstein-related documents. The explanation is rather straightforward: When celebrities “do their own research,” things like this may occur.
During his Tuesday visit on “The Pat McAfee Show,” Aaron Rodgers mentioned a monologue that Jimmy Kimmel had performed at his expense. “This goes back to Covid times, right? This is the history of this, whatever this is between Jimmy and me,” stated Rodgers. Additionally, he made jokes about my vaccination on his show back in the Covid days. and the reality that, well,
Rodgers is unable to laugh at an NFL quarterback who is not a scientist conducting his own independent study on vaccinations and Covid. He’s not alone, though, in not seeing it.
This raises larger questions about the nature of knowledge and what it means for a nonexpert to “do my own research,” regardless of whether one finds it humorous. Add in elements associated with public celebrity, and you get the absurdity we witness in Rodgers today. Given that, as NBC News once noted, “before Covid, Rodgers had enjoyed a reputation as a sensitive, Berkeley-educated renaissance man who was even a guest host of ‘Jeopardy,'” his case is especially intriguing.
In a recent paper published in Nature, a group of social scientists led by Kevin Aslett from the University of Central Florida present evidence that people consistently end up believing false claims more when they use online searches to assess their veracity. People don’t realize what they don’t know, which is why this occurs. Although it seems cliché, that has important ramifications.
Someone may invest some time in studying the data if they are doubtful about what is true, possibly because they don’t believe experts for a variety of reasons. This is not essentially an issue. However, looking for evidence is likely to produce worse results than just relying on expert opinion in situations when these searches are likely to turn up inaccurate or low-quality content, or what Aslett and colleagues refer to as “data voids.”
Even worse, the layperson “researcher” will believe they have learned anything new since they lack the fundamental education and experience necessary to assess the data they are finding!
Celebrity exacerbates, and in some circumstances fuels, the problem of people disbelieving specialists and acting on the findings of their own study. In addition to having a large platform to share their thoughts with others, celebrities who base their opinions on their own research benefit much from their very status.indicates that they will probably receive encouragement and assistance. That is, even when a well-known person makes a statement that a large number of people find offensive and/or factually incorrect, it is likely that some of those who are made aware of their deception will express agreement with them. Because of confirmation bias, the celebrity will easily interpret this agreement as evidence that their beliefs are accurate, which will further serve to bolster their arrogance.
Consider the Rodgers case: Even though his weekly show on ESPN is no longer airing, he has undoubtedly received a great deal of support and encouragement from others. In fact, he now enjoys unique status as a martyr—a strategy he has employed in the past. This may also strengthen his conviction that he is correct.
This cycle is especially harmful because, after taking a public stand on a subject and publishing more “content” about it, the “did my own research” celebrity instantly establishes themselves as a “expert” on the subject. This implies that when other people conduct their own investigation, they can stumble into the celebrity’s questionable “research,” which would spread lies.
Professor Timothy Caulfield of the University of Alberta has long maintained that celebrities are important purveyors of false information. The answer to this issue is for people to begin realizing the value of expertise as well as the significance of distinguishing between those who are and are not experts. A hint: Famous people are seldom authorities on subjects unrelated to their fame.
The value of skill is clear in many situations. Individuals do not bring their autos to non-mechanics. Any bridge that wasn’t constructed by an engineer would be unthinkable to them. This is a result of their realization—at least partially—that we require experts in order to function in this complex world.
The issue is that what constitutes competence gets muddled in fields where there is a lot of false information. People frequently listen to NFL quarterbacks on non-football matters because the quarterback’s message aligns more closely with their preexisting beliefs. But it’s crucial to keep in mind that conducting “one’s own research” does not always imply that a person is reliable. The fact that someone has a big platform for their beliefs does not necessarily mean that you should trust them, unless there is some other kind of proof.
If anything, the opposite has occurred, as their platform may have contributed to their overconfidence.