People Drawn to Conspiracy Theories Share a Cluster of Psychological Features(scientificamerican.com)
scientificamerican.com
People Drawn to Conspiracy Theories Share a Cluster of Psychological Features
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-drawn-to-conspiracy-theories-share-a-cluster-of-psychological-features/
191 comments
Social media is what is making people anxious in the first place. Then they serve as the platform for the circular referencing "proof". Facebook & WhatsApp posts are supported by YouTube videos, are supported by tweets, are supported by more YouTube videos and then back to more Facebook.
So some people I was visiting in a small town started going on about 'chemtrails' they learned about from someone on Facebook. These contrails control the weather, while dispensing chemicals that get into the ground water to control people's minds. They showed me a video on YouTube, it was polished bullshit if I ever saw it. Then there were more FB posts about people who "know the truth".
It was hopeless, even with apps that showed the flight origin and destination of of the planes overhead for commercial cargo, passengers, etc. Apparently hundreds of international and domestic flights are all part of a conspiracy to make it cloudy and dispense chemicals to control the minds of this town. Further, the chemicals are clearly not working since they are even be able to have these thoughts.
I blame social media. The real disaster is coming, this is just the second inning.
So some people I was visiting in a small town started going on about 'chemtrails' they learned about from someone on Facebook. These contrails control the weather, while dispensing chemicals that get into the ground water to control people's minds. They showed me a video on YouTube, it was polished bullshit if I ever saw it. Then there were more FB posts about people who "know the truth".
It was hopeless, even with apps that showed the flight origin and destination of of the planes overhead for commercial cargo, passengers, etc. Apparently hundreds of international and domestic flights are all part of a conspiracy to make it cloudy and dispense chemicals to control the minds of this town. Further, the chemicals are clearly not working since they are even be able to have these thoughts.
I blame social media. The real disaster is coming, this is just the second inning.
Social media as we know it is just further exposing the rot at the core of our thinking. Before the rise of Twitter and Facebook you had shock jockeys rule the radio world spreading conspiracy theories and what not. Social media has amplified those effects by allowing them to fester and indeed among many far right media sources you see them gleefully engage in such rhetoric as well (see: Seth Rich).
Social media is part of the greater symptom which is that conspiratorial thinking has gained mass appeal.
Social media is part of the greater symptom which is that conspiratorial thinking has gained mass appeal.
Those shock jockeys didn’t use your browsing history to determine exactly which conspiracies you will be most susceptible to. Denying the responsibility of YouTube, Facebook and other platforms that pursue viewer engagement at any cost by calling them a “symptom” of society is disingenuous and almost ill intended.
“Hey the cancer that put you in bed is just a symptom of who you are.”
“Hey the cancer that put you in bed is just a symptom of who you are.”
Those shock jockeys engaged their viewers through taking calls, reaching out or otherwise. I'm not denying the responsibility of social media sites by abusing their algorithmic bullshit, but the fact of the matter is that the modern conspiracy theorist originated with the radio. That's where Alex Jones got his start among many others.
If you don't know the history of how these things started, then all you'll do by removing Youtube, Facebook et al is treat one part of the cancer when it's metastasized to the rest of your body. It's ignorant. Sites like Infowars or Breitbart will rise from their ashes and we will have solved nothing.
If you don't know the history of how these things started, then all you'll do by removing Youtube, Facebook et al is treat one part of the cancer when it's metastasized to the rest of your body. It's ignorant. Sites like Infowars or Breitbart will rise from their ashes and we will have solved nothing.
Of course there are actors that downright pursue infecting the minds of people. However, the problem did not get out of control until the content platforms found those who were more susceptible to their message “at scale”.
Maybe it's semantics, but you're giving to much credit to recommendations. There's no intent that specific; all they really do is see that you liked X, and most people who liked X like Y, so it shows you Y. Politically, it causes echo chambers, it can show people all sorts of conspiracy theories, but my Youtube recommendations right now are showing me rollercoasters, airplanes, magic tricks, and cooking.
I understand that it is just sophisticated look alike targeting. Also, I don’t mean to say that the original intent of the designers is evil. However, the effects on viewers have to be analyzed, and most likely some changes are needed to stop people from falling into these echo chambers.
People blame FB for social media woes, but I feel that FB is different from the other social networks in that it’s the world you fully curate and manage. If FB is giving you grief, that’s people on your green list giving you grief. If you need FB to come in to manage that, then you’re basically saying you can’t even handle the agency involved in freedom of association.
I don’t have a Facebook account, and the company causes me grief regularly.
> Social media is what is making people anxious in the first place.
What you're saying is ignorance is bliss. Without social media, a few phone calls to media houses would have been sufficient to squelch the recent murder of a black male by the police.
The medium is not at fault.
We all hailed Facebook helped organize 'successful' revolutions in some 'oppressive' states.
It's easier to believe tales about people I distrust.
I prefer we focused on ways to increase transparency and fairness in government. That's the conspiracy theory vaccine we need.
What you're saying is ignorance is bliss. Without social media, a few phone calls to media houses would have been sufficient to squelch the recent murder of a black male by the police.
The medium is not at fault.
We all hailed Facebook helped organize 'successful' revolutions in some 'oppressive' states.
It's easier to believe tales about people I distrust.
I prefer we focused on ways to increase transparency and fairness in government. That's the conspiracy theory vaccine we need.
[deleted]
No, what I am saying is that social media is actually causing mental health issues including anxiety. If anxiety us at the root of people falling for conspiracies, then consider social media the fertilizer and the field.
I haven't hailed FB for squat. I don't even use it, but FB algorithms have been responsible for one genocide already, and I won't give it credit for the Arab Spring even for the small successes that were achieved.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
I haven't hailed FB for squat. I don't even use it, but FB algorithms have been responsible for one genocide already, and I won't give it credit for the Arab Spring even for the small successes that were achieved.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
The sky seems to have cleared up here in NL and appears more blue, and the sun feels more intense.
I am not the only one who has this impression.
I spend considerable time outside.
I am not the only one who has this impression.
I spend considerable time outside.
It's a good impulse, and almost certainly more productive, but aren't we still left with how to deal with people holding (and especially acting on) totally counterfactual beliefs? I would like them feel heard, but without encouraging them to actually harm other people (which fits with the 'cheating spouse' analogy I'd say).
My experience (I know a lot of people that are into conspiracies) is that if you show people they have insufficient knowledge to make their conclusions it makes them feel uncertain in their belief. They’ll draw back into the certainty of their theory. I’m not sure there is a way to convince conspiracy theorists. People that overcame their false beliefs seem to do this from an internal impetus but I‘d be happy to be proven wrong.
(To be clear I’m talking about 100% crazy theories like flat earth)
(To be clear I’m talking about 100% crazy theories like flat earth)
Wait, why are people threatened by gracias signs?
I left a volunteer service organization because, among other things, I grew tired of the political slant that included members posting things like “if you don’t like that we speak English in America, feel free to leave”.
Demographics are a huge sore spot for a lot of people.
Demographics are a huge sore spot for a lot of people.
Because people worry people different then them are coming to the US and taking their jobs. Because people find immigration threatening...
A more empathetic mindset can help everyone here. Try "People who are barely managing to keep living fear systemic changes that might make life as they know it impossible."
Thank you for this. It's incredible how so many people are incapable of empathizing with another person's perspective. People who feel fear of losing their livelihoods in a fast changing society are not all just ignorant racists to be thrown away. If we as a country want to come back from the political brink, we need to start by empathizing rather than demonizing.
Let's not call them incapable. Just not practiced :)
Because dem Mexicans are stealin our jerbs!
Yes, its literally just tribalism gone wild again, your typical lazy fast thinking pooping out nuggets of racism.
Yes, its literally just tribalism gone wild again, your typical lazy fast thinking pooping out nuggets of racism.
This is lazy thinking as well. There are enormous political and economic factors at play.
It’s not only racism that people leverage for political influence. People also use racism as a label for political gain.
But the people on the receiving end of that labelling tend not to be well represented on this forum, so it’s easy to smear them as backwards and ignore their complaints.
It’s not only racism that people leverage for political influence. People also use racism as a label for political gain.
But the people on the receiving end of that labelling tend not to be well represented on this forum, so it’s easy to smear them as backwards and ignore their complaints.
If you are part of the undifferentiated labour pool, well, this might actually be happening to you.
Immigration benefits the U.S overall but if you are hourly labour with no special skills then it is probably not helping your wages.
Immigration benefits the U.S overall but if you are hourly labour with no special skills then it is probably not helping your wages.
This needs to be more emphasized. It doesn't have to be racism, or rather the root cause is not a hate for another it's extreme anxiety of one's position for good cause. There a lot of people in the US who are not immigrant who are members of the precariat.
[deleted]
I don't feel particularly threatened or anything, but let me put it this way. Living in California and seeing more and more corporate advertising being done in Spanish (sometimes without even any English) leaves me with some concern. The concern is that some day, people(especially low-skill) will not be able to find a job unless they learn Spanish. Knowing Spanish will be a requirement to be able to compete for customer-facing jobs because they have decided that Spanish speakers should not have to learn English in this country, and that we should cater to them in the way of having documents, signs, etc. in Spanish. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, it's a nice thing. But the effect is that, eventually there is no need to learn English. You live in a community where everyone speaks Spanish already, so every business has to cater to Spanish speakers if they want good sales. So my concern goes out to all the people who grow up in this country who have only learned English, and are no longer at the point of being capable or willing to learn Spanish, who can no longer compete with born Spanish speakers or people who learned it from a young age. If that's the result we want, we should have been teaching Spanish from elementary school. But foreign language learning starts in high school, where you are only required to take a foreign language for 2 years, and it doesn't have to be Spanish.
yes, emotional content matters and we should try to be empathetic and compassionate, but the flip side of that is that (a primary marker of) maturation is the development of coping mechanisms to deal with anger and the underlying fear that fuels it, rather than mainly relying on others to kid-glove each other. and it’s both, not one or the other.
What was the term again? “Snowflakes”. Right.
"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."
-Fight Club, by Chuck Palahniuk
Chapter 17.
What's wrong with letting the person that feels threatened by the "graciás" sign go on feeling threatened?
As long as they don't take any aggressive or dangerous actions based on the feeling of course.
As long as they don't take any aggressive or dangerous actions based on the feeling of course.
Well maybe that’s exactly my point. Feeling threatened maybe feels taboo, so we don’t talk about it. Suppressing it creates the breeding ground for conspiracy theories. Talking about it helps us approach it rationally.
>As long as they don't take any aggressive or dangerous actions based on the feeling of course.
That's exactly what they will eventually do.
That's exactly what they will eventually do.
But that threatened feeling goes on to inform these people's votes or who they connect with etc. Such emotions are not innocuous and their damage is not confined only to the person who holds them.
Thanks for this insightful post! In this sense conspiracy theories are like a pot boiling over. You ultimately have a mess on your hands to wipe up, but the first thing is to remove the source of heat.
> People try to “debunk” conspiracy theories rationally, when really it’s the emotional content that matters.
I disagree. Often I see some sort of conspiracy theory online and I am interested in seeing in what degree it is true or false. I am interested in rational arguments from both sides, not some emotional bullshit. How do you deduce if a theory is true or not otherwise?
I disagree. Often I see some sort of conspiracy theory online and I am interested in seeing in what degree it is true or false. I am interested in rational arguments from both sides, not some emotional bullshit. How do you deduce if a theory is true or not otherwise?
I don’t think anyone has a clue what “emotional truth” looks like for antivaxxers or people who believe coronavirus is caused by 5G towers.
Because of anger with the medical system or “being told what to do”
Because I want an easy scapegoat for my Covid fears and greedy telecom companies are already disliked...
Because I want an easy scapegoat for my Covid fears and greedy telecom companies are already disliked...
So we can appease them - and prevent them from spreading potentially harmful information - by trying to make them less angry with the medical system or the telecom companies?
Sounds nebulous and I’m highly doubtful.
Sounds nebulous and I’m highly doubtful.
Designing a healthcare system that makes people less angry would be a fantastic way to make people trust healthcare institutions more.
If that seems unactionable, perhaps it says something about the quality of our healthcare systems.
If that seems unactionable, perhaps it says something about the quality of our healthcare systems.
Point of Information: the phrase "conspiracy theorist" was developed and fielded by the CIA as a counterintelligence effort.
Among other tactics, they wished to be able to use the term as a dismissal of anyone who got information about their real operations. This is very well documented, and is common among intel agencies of many countries.
It is also well documented, that the CIA and others (KGB etc.), have intentionally spread disinformation, from AIDS to Apollo hoaxes, in the same channel as (limited) legitimate information. This tactic is called "poisoning the well," the limited real info is a "limited hangout." If you put those terms into any search, youll find reams of documents detailing examples. Usually, these are the actions of some foreign service, analysed and released for the public service.
When the author began to align obviously false information with more credible things, what he is seeing are these intentional networks of lies that our own services have created. These things are not organic. He identifies common psychological features in these posters, because the intel agencies strongly select based on personality.
Also, how many of the accounts he investigated are bots? Was he able to prove that real individual people were doing this?
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Its been debunked already!
Among other tactics, they wished to be able to use the term as a dismissal of anyone who got information about their real operations. This is very well documented, and is common among intel agencies of many countries.
It is also well documented, that the CIA and others (KGB etc.), have intentionally spread disinformation, from AIDS to Apollo hoaxes, in the same channel as (limited) legitimate information. This tactic is called "poisoning the well," the limited real info is a "limited hangout." If you put those terms into any search, youll find reams of documents detailing examples. Usually, these are the actions of some foreign service, analysed and released for the public service.
When the author began to align obviously false information with more credible things, what he is seeing are these intentional networks of lies that our own services have created. These things are not organic. He identifies common psychological features in these posters, because the intel agencies strongly select based on personality.
Also, how many of the accounts he investigated are bots? Was he able to prove that real individual people were doing this?
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Its been debunked already!
> "Point of Information: the phrase "conspiracy theorist" was developed and fielded by the CIA as a counterintelligence effort."
Why do you think this?
I had never heard this before, and to be honest it immediately gave off whacko vibes, so I Googled it and found this article that says it is false - https://theconversation.com/theres-a-conspiracy-theory-that-...
Why do you think this?
I had never heard this before, and to be honest it immediately gave off whacko vibes, so I Googled it and found this article that says it is false - https://theconversation.com/theres-a-conspiracy-theory-that-...
Original sources work better. Apparently, this where it all came from: https://web.archive.org/web/20191121033812/https://www.nytim...
I’ve heard it before, but it does sound like a typical conspiracy theory: it could have theoretically happened, but seems too convenient for conspiracy theorists to use to say they are being persecuted by a large body of power.
You didn't mention a source for your point that the CIA coined the phase 'conspiracy theory'. I found the original source, in the New York Times. [1] (Context: combating suspicion of the CIA's involvement in the Kennedy assassination.) Relevant quotes:
> But a C.I.A. document, recently declassified under the Freedom of Information Act, provides a detailed account of at least one instance in which the agency mustered its propaganda machinery to support an issue of far more concern to Americans, and to the C.I.A. itself, than to citizens of other countries.
> “Conspiracy theories,” the cable went on, “have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit circulation of such claims in other countries.”
> Among the arguments that the agency suggested were that the Warren Commission had conducted “as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition.”
> “Point out also,” the cable directed, “that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists.”
> These critics and others, the C.I.A. said, should be depicted as “wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in,” politically or financially “interested” in disproving the commission's conclusion, “hasty or inaccurate in their research, or infatuated with their own theories.”
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20191121033812/https://www.nytim...
> But a C.I.A. document, recently declassified under the Freedom of Information Act, provides a detailed account of at least one instance in which the agency mustered its propaganda machinery to support an issue of far more concern to Americans, and to the C.I.A. itself, than to citizens of other countries.
> “Conspiracy theories,” the cable went on, “have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit circulation of such claims in other countries.”
> Among the arguments that the agency suggested were that the Warren Commission had conducted “as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition.”
> “Point out also,” the cable directed, “that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists.”
> These critics and others, the C.I.A. said, should be depicted as “wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in,” politically or financially “interested” in disproving the commission's conclusion, “hasty or inaccurate in their research, or infatuated with their own theories.”
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20191121033812/https://www.nytim...
> When the author began to align obviously false information with more credible things
I think there is a terminology problem in this discussion and it will cause lots of us in the comments to chase our tails.
I think the credibility word is too subjective to be useful in this discussion. I think most conspiracy accusations are unprovable by most of us (unless we are federal prosecutors) so I assume that both logic conspiracies and fantasy conspiracies must be evaluated with equally few facts.
I think the myth that the CIA created/empowered the term “conspiracy theory” has lots of the same symptoms of fantasy conspiracy theories themselves. It apparently empowers the powerful and gives additional persecution claims to those who are labeled “crazy”.
The most interesting part of your comment was to get me thinking about the role of bots (and AI in the future) in crafting both hypotheses and researching them. I’m curious if social media bots may give us the tools to effectively test the psychological traits of people who are more likely to adopt theories about less coherent conspiracies.
I think there is a terminology problem in this discussion and it will cause lots of us in the comments to chase our tails.
I think the credibility word is too subjective to be useful in this discussion. I think most conspiracy accusations are unprovable by most of us (unless we are federal prosecutors) so I assume that both logic conspiracies and fantasy conspiracies must be evaluated with equally few facts.
I think the myth that the CIA created/empowered the term “conspiracy theory” has lots of the same symptoms of fantasy conspiracy theories themselves. It apparently empowers the powerful and gives additional persecution claims to those who are labeled “crazy”.
The most interesting part of your comment was to get me thinking about the role of bots (and AI in the future) in crafting both hypotheses and researching them. I’m curious if social media bots may give us the tools to effectively test the psychological traits of people who are more likely to adopt theories about less coherent conspiracies.
> from AIDS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_INFEKTION
tl;dr: the USSR started the conspiracy theory that HIV was created in a US lab.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_INFEKTION
tl;dr: the USSR started the conspiracy theory that HIV was created in a US lab.
Fully agree with all that you said.
I'm sure that even if we lived in (or better: actively maintained) a much more sane and just world, some people, because they're sick or for other reasons, would still try to find fault with it. But it wouldn't spread like a wildfire.
The rich are getting richer, people who start wars of aggression and whatnot aren't punished, companies have battalions of lawyers and Jane Doe has nothing, we are on the course for environmental collapse and mass extinction, and so on. These are shorthands for huge and very much real issues. And yes, conspiracy theories aren't helping, either, and many people spouting them don't really want to roll up their sleeves and turn this ship around. But that's also true for many people obsessing about conspiracy theorists, too.
Let's say the emperor is naked. Most people say variations of "nice clothes! maybe some issues here and there, but nothing major". Some people go "he's butt naked!". And yet others go "he's wearing planet Jupiter as a hat!". The latter are obviously wrong, but it's still just so awkward when the people who think he has nice clothes on start to laugh at those thinking he is wearing Jupiter as a hat, and lump everyone who doesn't think he's wearing nice clothes into that category. It's as if the mainstream is using these even sicker people to pretend it itself is not sick, contrary to the mountains of evidence.
The rich are getting richer, people who start wars of aggression and whatnot aren't punished, companies have battalions of lawyers and Jane Doe has nothing, we are on the course for environmental collapse and mass extinction, and so on. These are shorthands for huge and very much real issues. And yes, conspiracy theories aren't helping, either, and many people spouting them don't really want to roll up their sleeves and turn this ship around. But that's also true for many people obsessing about conspiracy theorists, too.
Let's say the emperor is naked. Most people say variations of "nice clothes! maybe some issues here and there, but nothing major". Some people go "he's butt naked!". And yet others go "he's wearing planet Jupiter as a hat!". The latter are obviously wrong, but it's still just so awkward when the people who think he has nice clothes on start to laugh at those thinking he is wearing Jupiter as a hat, and lump everyone who doesn't think he's wearing nice clothes into that category. It's as if the mainstream is using these even sicker people to pretend it itself is not sick, contrary to the mountains of evidence.
> and many people spouting them don't really want to roll up their sleeves and turn this ship around
I don't know if I agree with you here.
> It's as if the mainstream is using these even sicker people to pretend it itself is not sick, contrary to the mountains of evidence.
I feel quite strongly that this is happening.
I don't know if I agree with you here.
> It's as if the mainstream is using these even sicker people to pretend it itself is not sick, contrary to the mountains of evidence.
I feel quite strongly that this is happening.
> > and many people spouting them don't really want to roll up their sleeves and turn this ship around
> I don't know if I agree with you here.
Would it help if "many" was changed to "some"? I was thinking of people who are more interested in scapegoats than anything, but I didn't mean to make a point about distribution, it was just to acknowledge that it isn't black and white.
> I don't know if I agree with you here.
Would it help if "many" was changed to "some"? I was thinking of people who are more interested in scapegoats than anything, but I didn't mean to make a point about distribution, it was just to acknowledge that it isn't black and white.
Yes It does make it a little better.
I have a cousin is into conspiracy theories and this explains him very accurately.
He is highly intelligent and used to be very analytical but got sidetracked in his life. Anxiety, disappointment and disenfranchisement describes his current state. Year after he became unemployed he started to watch X-files and all kind of conspiracy related entertainment. It was just entertainment. He saw it was silly. Then became History Channel and conspiracy internet tubers and all kinds of serious conspiracy stuff and it became more real to him.
Five years later he is deeply into that stuff. When we talk about it, he can follow my thinking perfectly and usually realizes that those theories are silly and laughs it off. Few hours later he is back into it. It's like he has tracks in his brain. He has walked the path so many times that his thinking goes back to the same things over and over. Maybe conspiracy theories protect him from negative emotions and facts of his situation as long as he keeps thinking them. He is harmless and nice person but his world view is crazy.
He is highly intelligent and used to be very analytical but got sidetracked in his life. Anxiety, disappointment and disenfranchisement describes his current state. Year after he became unemployed he started to watch X-files and all kind of conspiracy related entertainment. It was just entertainment. He saw it was silly. Then became History Channel and conspiracy internet tubers and all kinds of serious conspiracy stuff and it became more real to him.
Five years later he is deeply into that stuff. When we talk about it, he can follow my thinking perfectly and usually realizes that those theories are silly and laughs it off. Few hours later he is back into it. It's like he has tracks in his brain. He has walked the path so many times that his thinking goes back to the same things over and over. Maybe conspiracy theories protect him from negative emotions and facts of his situation as long as he keeps thinking them. He is harmless and nice person but his world view is crazy.
In this particular case then maybe it's worth (generally, not saying you in particular) how he became anxious and disenfranchised. Maybe the problem isn't the people themselves, but the systematic circumstances that lead people down this road. If there's an upstream problem, then it's better to work on a fix for that than to out of hand dismiss people as crazy.
That's what the article says and I agree.
But crazy worldview is crazy even if it's created by the circumstances.
But crazy worldview is crazy even if it's created by the circumstances.
> Maybe the problem isn't the people themselves, but the systematic circumstances that lead people down this road.
What is the difference? Systemic circumstances define us if they occur for long enough.
What is the difference? Systemic circumstances define us if they occur for long enough.
But empathy would dictate that we don't blame the victim of those circumstances and work to change those such that the victim is defined by a different set.
The entire concept of "conspiracy theories" is a persuasive device. Calling someone a conspiracy theorist isn't an argument, it's a rhetorical trick to discredit and disqualify the target, independent of the truth value of the target's claim. Or, as Harry Frankfurt calls it, bullshit.
I think I'm going to have to expand my list of normative sciences to four:
1) Logic, the normative science of what is true.
2) Aesthetic, the normative science of what is beautiful.
3) Ethic, the normative science of what is good.
4) Rhetoric, the normative science of what can be persuaded.
To be rigorous, which I admit often isn't worth the effort, one would have to examine a so-called conspiracy theory along every one of those axes that's germane.
I think I'm going to have to expand my list of normative sciences to four:
1) Logic, the normative science of what is true.
2) Aesthetic, the normative science of what is beautiful.
3) Ethic, the normative science of what is good.
4) Rhetoric, the normative science of what can be persuaded.
To be rigorous, which I admit often isn't worth the effort, one would have to examine a so-called conspiracy theory along every one of those axes that's germane.
>The entire concept of "conspiracy theories" is a persuasive device. Calling someone a conspiracy theorist isn't an argument, it's a rhetorical trick to discredit and disqualify the target, independent of the truth value of the target's claim. Or, as Harry Frankfurt calls it, bullshit.
Great analysis
Great analysis
Why is it so weird that people will turn to non-mainstream sources to explain a world that has been screwing them over for decades while mainstream sources say everything is better than ever?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...
Who is claiming things are universally better?
You can find plenty of people who talk about how great "The Economy" is doing, but that doesn't matter much for an individual who is struggling. When a bunch of those struggling individuals get together in that world you will get conspiracy theories as they try to work out why things are so bad and how they can improve their lives.
From about 20010-2019, anyone reporting on average (or maybe median) numbers. US jobless claims were at a 50-year low in February, and the stock market was in the longest bull market on record.
The less-reported undercurrent was that wages have been slow to rise, the jobs are less stable, and where wages have risen, they've gone to the top 10% of earners.
The less-reported undercurrent was that wages have been slow to rise, the jobs are less stable, and where wages have risen, they've gone to the top 10% of earners.
HN on practically every thread touching inequality, for starters.
Stephen Pinker. Hans Rosling.
I don't know about the first one, but Rosling is right. The world as a whole is doing better than it ever has. If you, personally, are about to be hit by a 2 ton truck, that's probably of not much comfort to you.
But it doesn't make him wrong.
But it doesn't make him wrong.
Just out of interest: you posed the question 'who is claiming that things are universally better?' and you are now acknowledging that you are aware of the arguments of a very mainstream (TED Talks, etc) source.
Why did you pose that question in response to the OP's explanation that some people are frustrated at the disconnect between their lives and the very standard narrative of a world which has benefitted from 'progress' in recent history?
Why did you pose that question in response to the OP's explanation that some people are frustrated at the disconnect between their lives and the very standard narrative of a world which has benefitted from 'progress' in recent history?
Because there is a huge burden of proof when you say "universally". It's disingenuous to make claims such as those about Rosling. Risking was basically fighting the 24/7 negative news cycle but it would be ridiculous to claim he said everyone was better off. What he was saying was: things aren't going to crap as you keep hearing and reading and statistically (key word: statistically!), for the whole globe, things are kind of looking up.
Do you think that your introduction of the word 'universally' accurately reflected the ideas expressed by the person to whom you were responding?
About 10 years now before irreversible climate change. After that any of the gains of the last 50 years will be eliminated. The (grudging and pitiably disproportionately small) increases in supply of food and medical support to the developing world were based on an extreme and rapid expansion of CO2 emitting industrial production. Unfortunately that comes with some (forseeable) consequences.
I have a hunch conspiracy theorists aren't really worried about global warming :-)
From what I have read they are concerned about it being a complete lie made up by others in order to facilitate their oppression.
That makes it a huge problem for anyone that believes that climate destruction is something that needs to be solved co-operatively.
Or we can keep on laughing and sneering at people that don't think the same thoughts as us.
I wonder how that will work out?
That makes it a huge problem for anyone that believes that climate destruction is something that needs to be solved co-operatively.
Or we can keep on laughing and sneering at people that don't think the same thoughts as us.
I wonder how that will work out?
The thing is, there are always loonies. Catering to them doesn't work. Society has advanced by putting in place rules to not abuse them (human rights, constituons, etc) but otherwise ignoring them politically. 100% consensus based politics has destroyed entire countries.
Has society advanced? By what metric?
Life expectancy, mortality rates for infants, nutrition, eradication of treatable diseases, ...
Most things we can measure are better.
Individual happiness, that's P = NP.
Most things we can measure are better.
Individual happiness, that's P = NP.
So, then you agree with the proposition that in general society has advanced, life is better and that most intelligent and reasonable people share that unarguable view?
And yet you wonder why people who are seeing declining life expectancy, poor nutrition and probable long-term unemployment react against the statement of that view as applying to them?
https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2019/12/02/middle-ag...
And yet you wonder why people who are seeing declining life expectancy, poor nutrition and probable long-term unemployment react against the statement of that view as applying to them?
https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2019/12/02/middle-ag...
Are they actually mainstream anywhere other than places like HackerNews? I feel like the majority of the mainstream info I see is on the opposite side, where everything is always terrible.
I think this guy might have a pretty mainstream audience: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/02/04/trump-tou...
I have no measurements to share with you on that question, but I think Pinker is mainstream, NPR, NYT background thought.
Why was it so weird in 2016 to see people turn to a non-mainstream presidential candidate who was the first major candidate to say that the world's been screwing them over for decades while mainstream sources say everything is better than ever?
When Trump won, my first reaction was fivethirtyeight put it at 29%; I've lost much better poker hands than that; it happens. My second reaction was that I can see how the win happened. He really was the first candidate in a long time to tell working class Americans, especially in the rust belt, that things aren't great.
When Trump won, my first reaction was fivethirtyeight put it at 29%; I've lost much better poker hands than that; it happens. My second reaction was that I can see how the win happened. He really was the first candidate in a long time to tell working class Americans, especially in the rust belt, that things aren't great.
Scientific American has changed its coverage drastically in the last few yeard. If you look at the headlines, there's an incredible amount of articles that discuss society, racism, government,etc. It's not science. This article is yet another example.
I find Scientific American has been deeply disappointing for 5 years if not more. They infrequnetly cover meaningful science, and when they do try their work is full of errors.
If human language can be manipulated for commercial gain, it will be. Taken to its logical conclusion, the economically contested term ceases to have any meaning. Think of SEO search keywords or fashionable technology buzzwords (cloud, big data, AI).
The adversarial weaponization of language by economically motivated actors should not be confused with the use of language for communication. Real humans have an amazing ability to communicate even on noisy channels.
The adversarial weaponization of language by economically motivated actors should not be confused with the use of language for communication. Real humans have an amazing ability to communicate even on noisy channels.
I do not believe in all conspiracy theories and I do not ignore all conspiracy theories.
When you understand that there are certain unprovable things and layers of gatekeepers for what is called "news". You have to connect the dots - and some would call it conspiracy theory.
When you understand that there are certain unprovable things and layers of gatekeepers for what is called "news". You have to connect the dots - and some would call it conspiracy theory.
I think the attack on “news” gatekeepers is a red herring. The National Enquirer has long been one of these, but they have never had any legitimate journalism credentials.
I think it’s more important to distinguish that there are good faith investigations into conspiracies and there are bad faith investigations (more commonly called conspiracy theories, but this terminology is overloaded to muddy the difference).
Good faith investigations acknowledge there are limits to what government/power/authority is reasonably able to do. Conspiracy theorists tend to attribute an impossibly high level of coordination, organization, ability to execute with no leaks, believe contradictory theories, accept complex assertions while rejecting simpler ones, etc. Additionally, people who believe in one conspiracy theory are likely to believe in many. I would argue that there’s a pathology in attributing the worst intentions to everyone in power and an inability for believers to impartially weigh evidence against their beliefs, so they aren’t incentivized to Only believe hypotheses with more coherence.
I think it’s more important to distinguish that there are good faith investigations into conspiracies and there are bad faith investigations (more commonly called conspiracy theories, but this terminology is overloaded to muddy the difference).
Good faith investigations acknowledge there are limits to what government/power/authority is reasonably able to do. Conspiracy theorists tend to attribute an impossibly high level of coordination, organization, ability to execute with no leaks, believe contradictory theories, accept complex assertions while rejecting simpler ones, etc. Additionally, people who believe in one conspiracy theory are likely to believe in many. I would argue that there’s a pathology in attributing the worst intentions to everyone in power and an inability for believers to impartially weigh evidence against their beliefs, so they aren’t incentivized to Only believe hypotheses with more coherence.
If you want to be able to tell if a story is conspiracy or not ignore the messenger of the theory. Integrate knowledge of psychology, behavioral biology and basic physics. You're going to find that a lot of conspiracy theories are easy to prove or disprove.
It seems to me that there are two kinds of conspiracy theories which should not be conflated.
On the one hand, there are theories which postulates a conspiracy to explain the available evidence. Nothing wrong with that, sometimes that is the correct explanation.
On the other hand, there are theories which invoke a conspiracy to invalidate the available evidence. Such theories are unfalsifiable, no evidence could possibly prove them wrong because all contrary evidence is just part of the conspiracy. This kind is problematic because its necessarily unhinged from any evidence or reality.
On the one hand, there are theories which postulates a conspiracy to explain the available evidence. Nothing wrong with that, sometimes that is the correct explanation.
On the other hand, there are theories which invoke a conspiracy to invalidate the available evidence. Such theories are unfalsifiable, no evidence could possibly prove them wrong because all contrary evidence is just part of the conspiracy. This kind is problematic because its necessarily unhinged from any evidence or reality.
I love how easily people see through bullshit articles like this. So tired of coincidence theorists!
I ought to do a post some day: "I'm one of HN's resident conspiracy theorists, ama."
I ought to do a post some day: "I'm one of HN's resident conspiracy theorists, ama."
There's a few academic papers waiting to be written from the HN archive!
What do you think is the theory you believe that is most outside the mainstream?
Mainstream of of which community? Some things that seem out there to most people are regularly accepted by the conspiracy community, and vice versa sometimes too.
Almost any conspiracy theory of any depth is outside the mainstream.
The furthest in both cases would probably have to do with aliens (whether real or fake but useful aka project blue beam). Or perhaps quantum mechanic related phenomenon. Not saying these are ones I subscribe to but giving examples.
I'll give you an example of one that is very much not accepted: Pizzagate (please don't misunderstand, I don't necessarily think pizzagate is "real", I think it very much could be a limited-hangout, etc). To many it sounds completely crazy, beyond ever being considered. For those of us who are aware of the larger pattern it matches though, it fits into that pattern. A great example of a similar case in which we have deductive evidence is the Dutroux affair (aka the Belgian X-Files). Epstein was on the periphery of the same type of operation, but was more of a front man/procurer, much like Dutroux. I could list many similar examples (Franklin scandal, finders cult, Saville, Jersey, Kinkora, Elm Guest House, Roy Cohn, etc) where we have witnesses and testimony and evidence that usually got buried, assassinated, etc if it ever got closer to the heart and away from the front men/fall guys (and gals, looking at you Ghislaine Maxwell).
This is the power of inductive logic.
Almost any conspiracy theory of any depth is outside the mainstream.
The furthest in both cases would probably have to do with aliens (whether real or fake but useful aka project blue beam). Or perhaps quantum mechanic related phenomenon. Not saying these are ones I subscribe to but giving examples.
I'll give you an example of one that is very much not accepted: Pizzagate (please don't misunderstand, I don't necessarily think pizzagate is "real", I think it very much could be a limited-hangout, etc). To many it sounds completely crazy, beyond ever being considered. For those of us who are aware of the larger pattern it matches though, it fits into that pattern. A great example of a similar case in which we have deductive evidence is the Dutroux affair (aka the Belgian X-Files). Epstein was on the periphery of the same type of operation, but was more of a front man/procurer, much like Dutroux. I could list many similar examples (Franklin scandal, finders cult, Saville, Jersey, Kinkora, Elm Guest House, Roy Cohn, etc) where we have witnesses and testimony and evidence that usually got buried, assassinated, etc if it ever got closer to the heart and away from the front men/fall guys (and gals, looking at you Ghislaine Maxwell).
This is the power of inductive logic.
Yes sorry, I meant outside the non-conspiracy community.
For example (apologies if this is rude to ask, I don't know!) which of these would you subscribe to;
- Neil Armstrong did not walk on the moon
- JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald
- WTC towers were destroyed in controlled demolition
-----------
EDIT: nevermind, you edited your comment - thanks!
For example (apologies if this is rude to ask, I don't know!) which of these would you subscribe to;
- Neil Armstrong did not walk on the moon
- JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald
- WTC towers were destroyed in controlled demolition
-----------
EDIT: nevermind, you edited your comment - thanks!
[deleted]
What notion is really interesting to me is the underlying believe that if "everything would be back to normal if those people responsible for this mess were exposed and removed". The adversity to accepting that most of life is just random and that evil things are a normal part of it is probably one fundamental trait of a conspiracy theory believer.
Cool story. We’d still believe the Earth is flat (some idiots still do) if we went by this logic and didn’t question the status-quo.
Idiots == people who are questioning the status quo of their day?
If the status quo is trivially provable, and has been for thousands of years, yes.
If it were trivially provable to these people they wouldn't question it.
I'm sure we all wish that were true.
There are people who have flown around the world many times who have gone down the flat earth rabbit hole.
Unfortunately the people who aren't confident they can actually learn about what they are afraid of, or correctly judge probabilities of things being true, spend their energy choosing who to believe instead of gathering information and forming a coherent understanding.
There are people who have flown around the world many times who have gone down the flat earth rabbit hole.
Unfortunately the people who aren't confident they can actually learn about what they are afraid of, or correctly judge probabilities of things being true, spend their energy choosing who to believe instead of gathering information and forming a coherent understanding.
Backwards. "Idiots" are the ones who do not question the status quo.
I wonder if investigative journalists also share 'a cluster of psychological features' too? Inquiring minds would like to know...
You can spot 'hallmarks of flaws' in official narratives, such as internal contradictions in the “evidence” and contentions based on shaky assumptions, and this makes thinking people question the mainstream media...
You can spot 'hallmarks of flaws' in official narratives, such as internal contradictions in the “evidence” and contentions based on shaky assumptions, and this makes thinking people question the mainstream media...
[deleted]
Maybe so.
I wonder if people who accept official or authoritative accounts of everything in spite of overwhelming evidence also share a cluster of psychological features?
I wonder if people who accept official or authoritative accounts of everything in spite of overwhelming evidence also share a cluster of psychological features?
This article reads like string theory from big bang theory. A search for one explanation that explains all.
With humans things rarely fit neatly.
With humans things rarely fit neatly.
> A 2017 study reported that believing in work-related conspiracies—such as the idea that managers make decisions to protect their own interests—causes individuals to feel less committed to their job.
That's not a conspiracy. It's a prior about the intent of others. Given that we humans are generally selfish, it's a justified prior.
That's not a conspiracy. It's a prior about the intent of others. Given that we humans are generally selfish, it's a justified prior.
Remember that the NSA spying thing was considered a conspiracy theory until the snowden leaks. Same goes for things like the Glomar Explorer. Being aware that there are conspiracies and being sceptical is not a mental defect, but rather a successful evolutionary strategy.
From the article:
> Encouraging analytic thinking may also help. In a 2014 study published in Cognition, Swami and his colleagues recruited 112 people for an experiment. First, they had everyone fill out a questionnaire that evaluated how strongly they believed in various conspiracy theories. A few weeks later the subjects came back in, and the researchers split them into two groups. One group completed a task that included unscrambling words in sentences containing words such as “analyze” and “rational,” which primed them to think more analytically.
Also:
> In addition, false conspiracy theories have several hallmarks, Lewandowsky says. Three of them are particularly noticeable. First, the theories include contradictions. For example, some deniers of climate change argue that there is no scientific consensus on the issue while framing themselves as heroes pushing back against established consensus. Both cannot be true. A second telltale sign is when a contention is based on shaky assumptions. Trump, for instance, claimed that millions of illegal immigrants cast ballots in the 2016 presidential election and were the reason he lost the popular vote. Beyond the complete lack of evidence for such voting, his assumption was that multitudes of such votes—if they existed—would have been for his Democratic opponent. Yet past polls of unauthorized Hispanic immigrants suggest that many of them would have voted for a Republican candidate over a Democratic one... A third sign that a claim is a far-fetched theory, rather than an actual conspiracy, is that those who support it interpret evidence against their theory as evidence for it. When the van of the alleged mail bomber Cesar Sayoc was found in Florida plastered with Trump stickers, for instance, some individuals said this helped to prove that Democrats were really behind the bombs. “If anyone thinks this is what a real conservative’s van looks like, you are being willfully ignorant. Cesar Sayoc is clearly just a fall guy for this obvious false flag,” one person posted on Twitter.
This article is about encouraging skepticism and analysis, not discouraging it. Notice how it discusses false conspiracy theories, as an acquiescence that sometimes conspiracy theories could become truth.
> Encouraging analytic thinking may also help. In a 2014 study published in Cognition, Swami and his colleagues recruited 112 people for an experiment. First, they had everyone fill out a questionnaire that evaluated how strongly they believed in various conspiracy theories. A few weeks later the subjects came back in, and the researchers split them into two groups. One group completed a task that included unscrambling words in sentences containing words such as “analyze” and “rational,” which primed them to think more analytically.
Also:
> In addition, false conspiracy theories have several hallmarks, Lewandowsky says. Three of them are particularly noticeable. First, the theories include contradictions. For example, some deniers of climate change argue that there is no scientific consensus on the issue while framing themselves as heroes pushing back against established consensus. Both cannot be true. A second telltale sign is when a contention is based on shaky assumptions. Trump, for instance, claimed that millions of illegal immigrants cast ballots in the 2016 presidential election and were the reason he lost the popular vote. Beyond the complete lack of evidence for such voting, his assumption was that multitudes of such votes—if they existed—would have been for his Democratic opponent. Yet past polls of unauthorized Hispanic immigrants suggest that many of them would have voted for a Republican candidate over a Democratic one... A third sign that a claim is a far-fetched theory, rather than an actual conspiracy, is that those who support it interpret evidence against their theory as evidence for it. When the van of the alleged mail bomber Cesar Sayoc was found in Florida plastered with Trump stickers, for instance, some individuals said this helped to prove that Democrats were really behind the bombs. “If anyone thinks this is what a real conservative’s van looks like, you are being willfully ignorant. Cesar Sayoc is clearly just a fall guy for this obvious false flag,” one person posted on Twitter.
This article is about encouraging skepticism and analysis, not discouraging it. Notice how it discusses false conspiracy theories, as an acquiescence that sometimes conspiracy theories could become truth.
> acquiescence that sometimes conspiracy theories could become truth
If there was an intention of acknowledging the truth behind some theories, they would / should have come right out and said so. As it is, the article is sending a much clearer message that 'if people were to think analytically, they wouldn't believe conspiracy theories'.
If there was an intention of acknowledging the truth behind some theories, they would / should have come right out and said so. As it is, the article is sending a much clearer message that 'if people were to think analytically, they wouldn't believe conspiracy theories'.
> some deniers of climate change argue that there is no scientific consensus on the issue while framing themselves as heroes pushing back against established consensus. Both cannot be true
Sure they can, scientific consensus != the consensus of the whole society. In addition he says as if this is a central part of the theory rather than just the argument that some random supporters of said theory say.
> Trump, for instance, claimed that ...
This is not even a theory about a conspiracy though. Why is this in the article?
> Yet past polls of unauthorized Hispanic immigrants suggest that many of them would have voted for a Republican candidate over a Democratic one
If they disagree they should engage in open dialogue. I have no reason to trust either of them.
> This article is about encouraging skepticism and analysis
Then let me be sceptic about how they did not include any conspiracy theories that are supported by the democrat party.
> Notice how it discusses false conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theories which that the one writing the article decided that they were false.
> sometimes conspiracy theories could become truth
Sometimes conspiracy theories are true from the start.
Sure they can, scientific consensus != the consensus of the whole society. In addition he says as if this is a central part of the theory rather than just the argument that some random supporters of said theory say.
> Trump, for instance, claimed that ...
This is not even a theory about a conspiracy though. Why is this in the article?
> Yet past polls of unauthorized Hispanic immigrants suggest that many of them would have voted for a Republican candidate over a Democratic one
If they disagree they should engage in open dialogue. I have no reason to trust either of them.
> This article is about encouraging skepticism and analysis
Then let me be sceptic about how they did not include any conspiracy theories that are supported by the democrat party.
> Notice how it discusses false conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theories which that the one writing the article decided that they were false.
> sometimes conspiracy theories could become truth
Sometimes conspiracy theories are true from the start.
Why can't we just call them myths? Conspiracy theory has become so dismissive, it can't be good for truth overall
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"
by John Ioannidis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
Just a reminder!8-))
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
Just a reminder!8-))
Cigarettes causing cancer was once a conspiracy theory.
[deleted]
(sarcastic) summary: If you don't take things at fac(k)e value, you're not part of the herd and would rather check the facts: you a conspirationist.
Wow, not even a quarter of the way through and I'm seeing what would most charitably described as "lies by omission". Also, I don't know if the writer would prefer I assume she is stupid, or that she conspired with her editor to structure things in such a way as to drive traffic through outrage - for example:
"...claiming that Jewish people were stealthily supporting illegal immigrants."
Well I'll go ahead and touch the third rail. There were a lot of non-profits involved, some would obviously fit the the conspiracy theorist's description (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society for example), others had 990s that further strengthened the theory. Was there a shadowy conspiracy? I doubt it, the majority of involved non-profits were classic left-wing open-borders types, some communists, and a bunch of Christian alliances. So why lie instead of presenting the results of a statistical sample?
"...positing that high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring..."
Pizzagate was a 4chan inside joke that got taken seriously by people who already had cause to be suspicious, and Epstein didn't kill himself. It reminds me of something Saddam Hussein admitted under FBI interrogation: he wanted the US to think he had WMDs, because that would cause his regional adversaries to think the same. Obviously he miscalculated. After years of weird spirit cooking talk and association with known degenerates, people are going to start thinking you mean it.
Finally: does anybody remember the satanic panic? Surprise, there was a government cover-up of weird cult ritual stuff involving abused children. If you said so, for almost 30 years, you were a wacky conspiracy theorist... until the FBI released the file to zero interest: https://vault.fbi.gov/the-finders
"...claiming that Jewish people were stealthily supporting illegal immigrants."
Well I'll go ahead and touch the third rail. There were a lot of non-profits involved, some would obviously fit the the conspiracy theorist's description (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society for example), others had 990s that further strengthened the theory. Was there a shadowy conspiracy? I doubt it, the majority of involved non-profits were classic left-wing open-borders types, some communists, and a bunch of Christian alliances. So why lie instead of presenting the results of a statistical sample?
"...positing that high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring..."
Pizzagate was a 4chan inside joke that got taken seriously by people who already had cause to be suspicious, and Epstein didn't kill himself. It reminds me of something Saddam Hussein admitted under FBI interrogation: he wanted the US to think he had WMDs, because that would cause his regional adversaries to think the same. Obviously he miscalculated. After years of weird spirit cooking talk and association with known degenerates, people are going to start thinking you mean it.
Finally: does anybody remember the satanic panic? Surprise, there was a government cover-up of weird cult ritual stuff involving abused children. If you said so, for almost 30 years, you were a wacky conspiracy theorist... until the FBI released the file to zero interest: https://vault.fbi.gov/the-finders
This is irresponsible journalism.
>You can spot hallmarks of fake theories, such as internal contradictions in the “evidence” and contentions based on shaky assumptions, psychologists say.
Just look at the many legitimate sources of conflicting information regarding COVID. Hell, many of our medical practices are based on "shaky assumptions" and shoddy survey data, especially in psychology.
Conspiracies happen, speculation is valid and arguably necessary for a healthy society. But this? This is just some kind of weird appeal to authority - recognizing the possibility of conspiracies and attempting to piece them together is not pathological and a society which believes it is it placing itself firmly under an unyielding authoritarian boot.
>You can spot hallmarks of fake theories, such as internal contradictions in the “evidence” and contentions based on shaky assumptions, psychologists say.
Just look at the many legitimate sources of conflicting information regarding COVID. Hell, many of our medical practices are based on "shaky assumptions" and shoddy survey data, especially in psychology.
Conspiracies happen, speculation is valid and arguably necessary for a healthy society. But this? This is just some kind of weird appeal to authority - recognizing the possibility of conspiracies and attempting to piece them together is not pathological and a society which believes it is it placing itself firmly under an unyielding authoritarian boot.
I agree that immediately diagnosing people's mental state if they are having questions about what they are being told seems way more dangerous than letting people explore new ideas. Maybe there are some truths that needs to be uncovered before the world can become better.
> 'Conspiracy theories are becoming more visible'
One I wanted to share anecdotic (A: and B: texting);
B: "The reason of every causality related to probability is 'action and reaction'."
A: "'Not contentual' but reachable and alternative - Only in one direction. So it would became provable, that in the heart of each theory may be no veritable solution."
B: "Even if combinations of the whole and something imaginary find together ?"
Left me with a question... (-;
x-Files for Computer (-:
One I wanted to share anecdotic (A: and B: texting);
B: "The reason of every causality related to probability is 'action and reaction'."
A: "'Not contentual' but reachable and alternative - Only in one direction. So it would became provable, that in the heart of each theory may be no veritable solution."
B: "Even if combinations of the whole and something imaginary find together ?"
Left me with a question... (-;
x-Files for Computer (-:
In fact conspiracy by the ruling class has been the main mechanism of leveraging power since the dawn of civilization. One of their best conspiracies in modern times has been to convince the populace that those pointing them out are nuts.
[deleted]
“The best trick the devil ever pulled was to make people think he doesn't exist.” — The Usual Suspects
> One of their best conspiracies in modern times has been to convince the populace that those pointing them out are nuts.
Even if this is true, the fact remains that most conspiracy theories are nuts.
No matter how many times conspiracy theorists shout "Snowden! Snowden!" at critics, that doesn't lend credibility by association to flat earth, anti-vaxxers, Pizzagate, etc.
Even if this is true, the fact remains that most conspiracy theories are nuts.
No matter how many times conspiracy theorists shout "Snowden! Snowden!" at critics, that doesn't lend credibility by association to flat earth, anti-vaxxers, Pizzagate, etc.
The things you are referencing are known as limited-hangouts, and by a few other terms as well.
It's modern psyops to make legitimate conspiracy theories and theorists look crazy by association... and it is very effective. (case in point)
It's modern psyops to make legitimate conspiracy theories and theorists look crazy by association... and it is very effective. (case in point)
Not relevant. Most layman get science wrong. It doesn't mean science is bad.
It does mean that scientists who can't or won't differentiate between good and bad science are bad scientists.
Conspiracy theorists who claim to merely be skeptical of the "status quo" but cannot or will not differentiate between a plausible conspiracy theory (say, Snowden or Epstein) and an implausble one (5g towers cause COVID) are bad skeptics.
Conspiracy theorists who claim to merely be skeptical of the "status quo" but cannot or will not differentiate between a plausible conspiracy theory (say, Snowden or Epstein) and an implausble one (5g towers cause COVID) are bad skeptics.
There are lots of clicks to be gained nowadays from highlighting the very stupidest people you can find and poking fun at them. It's entertaining but it's dumbing down discourse when people are discussing positions that are essentially strawmen.
>It's entertaining but it's dumbing down discourse when people are discussing positions that are essentially strawmen.
One such strawman is one you'll find throughout this thread, that anyone skeptical of conspiracy theories is either an agent of the conspiracy, a useful idiot or a troll. That dumbs down discourse as well but no one seems to question it.
One such strawman is one you'll find throughout this thread, that anyone skeptical of conspiracy theories is either an agent of the conspiracy, a useful idiot or a troll. That dumbs down discourse as well but no one seems to question it.
I had to read your post many times and I'm still not entirely sure what you are saying. I think you may misunderstand what "strawman" is. It's a silly opinion you ascribe to the other side of a debate, so you can look good when you refute it.
Fair enough, I may have used the term strawman incorrectly. It's unfortunate that your mind apparently segfaulted on that minor error, rendering you unable to comprehend the rest of my comment and provide a relevant reply to it. I'll try to be more precise with my language in the future.
> most conspiracy theories are nuts.
Most theories claiming to be "conspiracies" are nuts.
When free speech outweighs censorship, spam can be used to make signal harder to find by increasing noise.
If there is useful signal associated with "foo", then "fake foo" (embrace and extend) makes it more expensive to find "foo" signal. This is still preferable to censorship, since increased literacy enables real signals to be found.
Most theories claiming to be "conspiracies" are nuts.
When free speech outweighs censorship, spam can be used to make signal harder to find by increasing noise.
If there is useful signal associated with "foo", then "fake foo" (embrace and extend) makes it more expensive to find "foo" signal. This is still preferable to censorship, since increased literacy enables real signals to be found.
You keep hearing about flat-earth only because it is so ridiculous. There are not a lot of people who believe in it.
As for "anti-vaxxers", this is a position rather than a conspiracy. Do you have something specific in mind? (such as the autism thing?)
I do not know about Pizzagate specifically but there is a lot of evidence for sexual abuse by powerful people (epstein is just one recent example).
As for "anti-vaxxers", this is a position rather than a conspiracy. Do you have something specific in mind? (such as the autism thing?)
I do not know about Pizzagate specifically but there is a lot of evidence for sexual abuse by powerful people (epstein is just one recent example).
You have redefined "most" to exclude the conspiracy theories that disprove your point.
How often are you told that vaccines cause autism? How often are you told that the earth is flat?
Now compare that to how often you are told that Epstein did not commit suicide, for example.
Most conspiracy theories aren't false, per se. You just only pay attention to, and remember, the ridiculous ones.
How often are you told that vaccines cause autism? How often are you told that the earth is flat?
Now compare that to how often you are told that Epstein did not commit suicide, for example.
Most conspiracy theories aren't false, per se. You just only pay attention to, and remember, the ridiculous ones.
The theory that Epstein was murdered isn't really a conspiracy theory, in the usual sense. Your typical nutty conspiracy theory requires tens or hundreds of people all to be in on the conspiracy. Murdering someone in jail might only require the involvement of two or three people.
I think the Epstein conspiracy is more about figuring out just who he was, where he got his money, and how his connections to very many very powerful people tie in to his known abuse of children. That's why people question the official narrative of suicide.
> and how his connections to very many very powerful people
It's funny how the true Epstein case turns out to be so broadly similar to the Pizzagate and Qanon conspiracy stories. I mean, Epstein did not actually own a pizza place somewhere in DC, but he could have.
It's funny how the true Epstein case turns out to be so broadly similar to the Pizzagate and Qanon conspiracy stories. I mean, Epstein did not actually own a pizza place somewhere in DC, but he could have.
The best lies have a kernel of truth inside them.
> flat earth, anti-vaxxers, Pizzagate
I disagree with the assertion that these are representative of "most" conspiracy theories. How about JFK? The Panama Papers? Mass surveillance? These are real things that happen, and people are offered no explanation—or no good explanation—and will try to reason out their own.
I disagree with the assertion that these are representative of "most" conspiracy theories. How about JFK? The Panama Papers? Mass surveillance? These are real things that happen, and people are offered no explanation—or no good explanation—and will try to reason out their own.
Do you not see the stark difference between the first set and the set you list?
Each of the ones you listed fall into two camps - lack of evidence to disprove (e.g. JFK papers being sealed) or evidence available to support (Mass surveillance, Panama Papers).
Flat earth, anti-vax, pizzagate have mountains of evidence to disprove them, but there are a worrying number of people who buy into them, and an entire cottage industry pushing them. See also 5G.
Each of the ones you listed fall into two camps - lack of evidence to disprove (e.g. JFK papers being sealed) or evidence available to support (Mass surveillance, Panama Papers).
Flat earth, anti-vax, pizzagate have mountains of evidence to disprove them, but there are a worrying number of people who buy into them, and an entire cottage industry pushing them. See also 5G.
Weak evidence is not the same as a shaky assumption, which is not evidence at all.
> Conspiracies happen
As do coincidences. This isn’t about conspiracies but about conspiracy theories.
A provable conspiracy is two or more agents coming together, even without their awareness of alignment, to achieve a single specific secretive goal as qualified with evidence. Qualified evidence is any single or series of provable facts that directly links each participating agent to the secretive goal with intent. The most important part of that is proving intent. A conspiracy theory is a belief there should be a conspiracy but without the necessary qualified evidence.
Coincidence - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence
Conspiracy theory (nonsense) - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
Conspiracy - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy
Intention - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention
Given the terms I find it’s not at all far fetched to conclude there exists some common mental health defect that allows conspiracy theories to flourish amongst some people and not others.
> Conspiracies happen
As do coincidences. This isn’t about conspiracies but about conspiracy theories.
A provable conspiracy is two or more agents coming together, even without their awareness of alignment, to achieve a single specific secretive goal as qualified with evidence. Qualified evidence is any single or series of provable facts that directly links each participating agent to the secretive goal with intent. The most important part of that is proving intent. A conspiracy theory is a belief there should be a conspiracy but without the necessary qualified evidence.
Coincidence - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence
Conspiracy theory (nonsense) - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
Conspiracy - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy
Intention - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention
Given the terms I find it’s not at all far fetched to conclude there exists some common mental health defect that allows conspiracy theories to flourish amongst some people and not others.
> A conspiracy theory is a belief there should be a conspiracy but without the necessary qualified evidence.
That is an arbitrarily high standard. Just because the subject of a hypothesis is that there is a conspiracy doesn't automatically make lack of evidence problematic. Even for natural phenomena there can go decades before a hypothesis is backed with evidence if ever (e.g. Einstein), human interactions and particularly intent is much more unlikely to leave a trail of evidence so I don't get how being even more strict with it helps with our knowledge gathering process. All conspiracies that turned out to be true were conspiracy hypotheses before they were proven and this defense could have been (and was, and is) used to stifle the process of evidence gathering.
This doesn't mean most of the conspiracy hypotheses aren't far fetched, emotional and poorly argued, nor that all is entitled to public attention equally, but we can't apply different epistemological standards between conspiracies or natural phenomena (science) when we are faced with unknowns.
> Given the terms I find it’s not at all far fetched to conclude there exists some common mental health defect
If we judged this premise by the standard you've posited, it would be equally problematic. In fact, we know in the past, states have abused psychiatry to discredit dissenters. Check out Soviet Union and their "creative" diagnostic labels used against political dissenters as an example.
That is an arbitrarily high standard. Just because the subject of a hypothesis is that there is a conspiracy doesn't automatically make lack of evidence problematic. Even for natural phenomena there can go decades before a hypothesis is backed with evidence if ever (e.g. Einstein), human interactions and particularly intent is much more unlikely to leave a trail of evidence so I don't get how being even more strict with it helps with our knowledge gathering process. All conspiracies that turned out to be true were conspiracy hypotheses before they were proven and this defense could have been (and was, and is) used to stifle the process of evidence gathering.
This doesn't mean most of the conspiracy hypotheses aren't far fetched, emotional and poorly argued, nor that all is entitled to public attention equally, but we can't apply different epistemological standards between conspiracies or natural phenomena (science) when we are faced with unknowns.
> Given the terms I find it’s not at all far fetched to conclude there exists some common mental health defect
If we judged this premise by the standard you've posited, it would be equally problematic. In fact, we know in the past, states have abused psychiatry to discredit dissenters. Check out Soviet Union and their "creative" diagnostic labels used against political dissenters as an example.
> That is an arbitrarily high standard.
Which likely explains why conspiracy theories proliferate.
Which likely explains why conspiracy theories proliferate.
> Which likely explains why conspiracy theories proliferate.
That is not necessarily a bad thing, but setting an arbitrarily high standard is problematic. Human life is complex, interactions are combinatorially so. Just because uncertainty makes us uncomfortable doesn't mean we should move the bar higher to only deal with the comfortable territory (those with readily available evidence). History is full of atrocities that didn't immediately produced evidence, and even in the face of evidence we denied it could be happening for a long while. Even evidence is no panacea for our biased knowledge-seeking machinery. Not all beliefs are bad. Not all truths are comfortable. Therefore it is imperative we be careful with what we ignore and what we don't.
That is not necessarily a bad thing, but setting an arbitrarily high standard is problematic. Human life is complex, interactions are combinatorially so. Just because uncertainty makes us uncomfortable doesn't mean we should move the bar higher to only deal with the comfortable territory (those with readily available evidence). History is full of atrocities that didn't immediately produced evidence, and even in the face of evidence we denied it could be happening for a long while. Even evidence is no panacea for our biased knowledge-seeking machinery. Not all beliefs are bad. Not all truths are comfortable. Therefore it is imperative we be careful with what we ignore and what we don't.
> Therefore it is imperative we be careful with what we ignore and what we don't.
That is why investigations are a thing. The need for proofs is completely unrelated to complexity.
That is why investigations are a thing. The need for proofs is completely unrelated to complexity.
> That is why investigations are a thing
My point was exactly how states in the past could not un-corrupt themselves through investigations. That is why observing, questioning eyes of everyone is needed.
> The need for proofs is completely unrelated to complexity.
You couldn't be more wrong. Number of possible moves in a game of chess is 10^43. It exhausts the computation capacity of the most powerful computer, let alone a human's. They have to use heuristics, in other words, they have to decide what is relevant and what is not. Real life is infinitely more complex, rules are not self evident and there are many more players. Therefore we always have to decide how we will deal with complexity, therefore e.g. what we choose to investigate or what criteria we will use to assess the claims is much more consequential than you acknowledge. You are suggesting an arbitrarily high bar for investigation, assuming anything that doesn't readily have evidence will not be relevant. This is one way to narrow the problem space indeed, but it is not a good one. Things that have the most evidence are not always the things that are most relevant and vice versa.
My point was exactly how states in the past could not un-corrupt themselves through investigations. That is why observing, questioning eyes of everyone is needed.
> The need for proofs is completely unrelated to complexity.
You couldn't be more wrong. Number of possible moves in a game of chess is 10^43. It exhausts the computation capacity of the most powerful computer, let alone a human's. They have to use heuristics, in other words, they have to decide what is relevant and what is not. Real life is infinitely more complex, rules are not self evident and there are many more players. Therefore we always have to decide how we will deal with complexity, therefore e.g. what we choose to investigate or what criteria we will use to assess the claims is much more consequential than you acknowledge. You are suggesting an arbitrarily high bar for investigation, assuming anything that doesn't readily have evidence will not be relevant. This is one way to narrow the problem space indeed, but it is not a good one. Things that have the most evidence are not always the things that are most relevant and vice versa.
> Real life is infinitely more complex
As somebody who has conducted lawful investigations I am fully aware. In a real life investigation where the outcome can bring legal sanctions that destroys a person's life or career the opinion of the investigator has weight, but that opinion is irrelevant without evidence to connect the dots. A conspiracy theory will sink the credibility of the investigation. What matters is what you can prove and what the attorney finds is legally qualified.
> You are suggesting an arbitrarily high bar for investigation
As I should.
As somebody who has conducted lawful investigations I am fully aware. In a real life investigation where the outcome can bring legal sanctions that destroys a person's life or career the opinion of the investigator has weight, but that opinion is irrelevant without evidence to connect the dots. A conspiracy theory will sink the credibility of the investigation. What matters is what you can prove and what the attorney finds is legally qualified.
> You are suggesting an arbitrarily high bar for investigation
As I should.
> In a real life investigation where the outcome can bring legal sanctions that destroys a person's life or career the opinion of the investigator has weight, but that opinion is irrelevant without evidence to connect the dots
Truth is not under the monopoly of legal systems. Legal systems make use of truth to deliver justice, not to make sense and meaning of what is going on at large. They don’t orient us as a society regarding what is important to pay attention to. Besides, you can’t be suggesting legal investigations catch everything there is to investigate, nor lack of due investigation doesn’t destroy lives either. Nor every conspiracy is readily codified in law. Laws change and get applied as a function of what we bring into attention or not.
Conspiracies by nature rely heavily on information asymmetries. It means most of the time we don’t even know what to investigate. That is why conspiracy hypotheses are crucial to be vigilant about the possible connections even with weak evidence. It is a preliminary exploration of the problem space; reasonable people don’t suggest we prosecute people based on hypotheses only. We are talking about a process that might or might not lead to an investigation but not an alternative to it.
Truth is not under the monopoly of legal systems. Legal systems make use of truth to deliver justice, not to make sense and meaning of what is going on at large. They don’t orient us as a society regarding what is important to pay attention to. Besides, you can’t be suggesting legal investigations catch everything there is to investigate, nor lack of due investigation doesn’t destroy lives either. Nor every conspiracy is readily codified in law. Laws change and get applied as a function of what we bring into attention or not.
Conspiracies by nature rely heavily on information asymmetries. It means most of the time we don’t even know what to investigate. That is why conspiracy hypotheses are crucial to be vigilant about the possible connections even with weak evidence. It is a preliminary exploration of the problem space; reasonable people don’t suggest we prosecute people based on hypotheses only. We are talking about a process that might or might not lead to an investigation but not an alternative to it.
Truth is a product of belief systems and agreement, opposed to factuality, which is why evidence is given greater authority.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
That is not what truth is. Belief, knowledge, truth they all have different meanings in epistemology. There are centuries of philosophy and critique made on these problems. If you are interested in learning, I would suggest starting with some Kant, and checking the term das-ding-an-sich.
Writing off people with dissenting/anti-establishment viewpoints as mentally ill is at best extremely pedestrian; potentially extremely sinister.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatr...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatr...
It is not about agreement/disagreement. It is only about the inability to separate belief systems from evidence.
Conspiracy theory often happens when coincidence becomes unbelievable. (I like the phrase someone else coined in this thread, 'coincidence theory', when we hold onto the coincidence explanation too long.) NSA spying was believed by many long before snowden, because the coincidences were piling up even though intent was not proven.
I don't think it's fair to conclude there's a mental health defect in people more skeptical of the status quo (If we want to go that route, perhaps there is a similar mental health defect that allows belief in improbable coincidence to flourish among some people and not others?).
I don't think it's fair to conclude there's a mental health defect in people more skeptical of the status quo (If we want to go that route, perhaps there is a similar mental health defect that allows belief in improbable coincidence to flourish among some people and not others?).
> I don't think it's fair to conclude there's a mental health defect in people more skeptical of the status quo.
It’s not about fair, popularity, perceptions, or belief systems. It is only about the inability to separate evidence from belief. The strength or popularity of the belief does transform that belief into evidence.
It’s not about fair, popularity, perceptions, or belief systems. It is only about the inability to separate evidence from belief. The strength or popularity of the belief does transform that belief into evidence.
Let me say it differently then. It isn't intellectually honest to dismiss someone's opinion by claiming them mentally defective. It would be just as easy to say that you're in denial, because you're asking for unreasonably high levels of evidence.
I can dismiss conspiracy theories as nonsense, regardless of any mental defect, because they are nonsense. Perhaps that is horribly unfair, but it’s entirely intellectually honest. If you want intellectual honesty pursue evidence instead of agreement.
[deleted]
a) You're skipping right past my point, that dismissing a conspiracy theory by calling its proponent mentally defective is intellectually dishonest. Also, it comes dangerously close to an ad homenim, if not done right.
b) NSA surveilance was a conspiracy theory 15 years ago. Was that nonsense?
b) NSA surveilance was a conspiracy theory 15 years ago. Was that nonsense?
> Also, it comes dangerously close to an ad homenim, if not done right.
Equating mental illness or impairment to an ad hominem ignores the medical nature of the subject in preference for an ignorant social stigma. See the last paragraph of this comment to discover what mental illness is according to the medicine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23329867
Equating mental illness or impairment to an ad hominem ignores the medical nature of the subject in preference for an ignorant social stigma. See the last paragraph of this comment to discover what mental illness is according to the medicine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23329867
Citing yourself and a paper that isn't published or peer-reviewed puts you at exactly the same level of evidence that you have expressed such disdain for.
The definition of mental illness has nothing to do with whether what you said is an ad homenim. If you were to diagnose someone with a relevant mental illness, and then have a conversation with them which brought their conspiratorial ideas to your attention for the first time, then saying their conspiratorial talk was the result of a mental illness would be legitimate. However, to have a conversation with someone, hear them theorize the existence of a conspiracy, and then conclude they must be part of a set of people with a mental deficiency? That is absolutely an ad homenim.
So, again: I don't think it's fair to conclude there's a mental health defect in people more skeptical of the status quo.
The definition of mental illness has nothing to do with whether what you said is an ad homenim. If you were to diagnose someone with a relevant mental illness, and then have a conversation with them which brought their conspiratorial ideas to your attention for the first time, then saying their conspiratorial talk was the result of a mental illness would be legitimate. However, to have a conversation with someone, hear them theorize the existence of a conspiracy, and then conclude they must be part of a set of people with a mental deficiency? That is absolutely an ad homenim.
So, again: I don't think it's fair to conclude there's a mental health defect in people more skeptical of the status quo.
If you need a more expanded definition that otherwise says much the same things try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder#Definition
Diagnosing somebody with a broken arm is not a personal attack and neither should be a mental health diagnosis.
> I don't think it's fair
Life isn't fair. Fairness is a subject best left to small children and courts of law. To address your concern though, evidence is not about agreement.
Diagnosing somebody with a broken arm is not a personal attack and neither should be a mental health diagnosis.
> I don't think it's fair
Life isn't fair. Fairness is a subject best left to small children and courts of law. To address your concern though, evidence is not about agreement.
> If you need a more expanded definition
Logically speaking, we could be talking about how belief in conspiracy theory is affected by mental deficiency, a preference for apple pie, or a broken arm. Giving me a definition of 'thing-that-is-bad' is irrelevant to its use as a potential ad homenim. And as I said - if you already have a diagnosis of the person, then feel free to mention it as a point against their theory of a conspiracy. But if you do not already have that diagnosis, then claiming the theory implies a mental deficiency is absolutely an ad homenim against the theory. The order of the cause and effect matters.
I think you mistook my use of the word "fair". I was using the first definition from merriam-webster: "marked by impartiality and honesty." Maybe I should just keep using "intellectually honest" since that appears to cause less confusion. We do agree on your other point, though, that "evidence is not about agreement." Maybe I should use the phrase 'theorize about the existence of a conspiracy' instead of 'skeptical of the status quo'.
With that addressed: I don't think it's intellectually honest to conclude there's a mental health defect in people who theorize about the existence of a conspiracy.
Logically speaking, we could be talking about how belief in conspiracy theory is affected by mental deficiency, a preference for apple pie, or a broken arm. Giving me a definition of 'thing-that-is-bad' is irrelevant to its use as a potential ad homenim. And as I said - if you already have a diagnosis of the person, then feel free to mention it as a point against their theory of a conspiracy. But if you do not already have that diagnosis, then claiming the theory implies a mental deficiency is absolutely an ad homenim against the theory. The order of the cause and effect matters.
I think you mistook my use of the word "fair". I was using the first definition from merriam-webster: "marked by impartiality and honesty." Maybe I should just keep using "intellectually honest" since that appears to cause less confusion. We do agree on your other point, though, that "evidence is not about agreement." Maybe I should use the phrase 'theorize about the existence of a conspiracy' instead of 'skeptical of the status quo'.
With that addressed: I don't think it's intellectually honest to conclude there's a mental health defect in people who theorize about the existence of a conspiracy.
> NSA spying was believed by many long before snowden, because the coincidences were piling up even though intent was not proven
What were the inexpiable coincidences that were piling up?
What were the inexpiable coincidences that were piling up?
I wouldn't say so much "coincidences" as "significant prior evidence."
Here's what led me to believe that the NSA was engaged in large sale interception of communications years before the Snowden disclosures:
"The Puzzle Palace," published in 1982: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puzzle_Palace
Report from the EU's investigation of ECHELON in 2001: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Committee_on_the_ECH...
Disclosures around room 641A in 2006 (discussed yesterday on HN): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
The NSA's capabilities were correctly speculated upon by technically adept civil libertarians before the Snowden disclosures. The details were certainly fuzzier before 2013. But mass surveillance capabilities were no more in doubt than the existence of Israel's nuclear weapons program. In both cases there was plenty of concrete evidence despite official denial and/or stonewalling.
Here's what led me to believe that the NSA was engaged in large sale interception of communications years before the Snowden disclosures:
"The Puzzle Palace," published in 1982: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puzzle_Palace
Report from the EU's investigation of ECHELON in 2001: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Committee_on_the_ECH...
Disclosures around room 641A in 2006 (discussed yesterday on HN): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
The NSA's capabilities were correctly speculated upon by technically adept civil libertarians before the Snowden disclosures. The details were certainly fuzzier before 2013. But mass surveillance capabilities were no more in doubt than the existence of Israel's nuclear weapons program. In both cases there was plenty of concrete evidence despite official denial and/or stonewalling.
Yes, I agree with you completely that there was significant prior evidence. I would go as far to say as a very large amount of what Snowden revealed was in fact already known. This seems to be the opposite of it being a conspiracy theory - that's why I asked specifically about these "coincidences piling up".
You're changing the definition of "conspiracy theory" in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample you were given of NSA spying.
What's an example of a claim that you think was considered a conspiracy theory pre-Snowden, that now isn't?
The existence of "NSA spying" I don't believe was ever considered a conspiracy theory.
The existence of "NSA spying" I don't believe was ever considered a conspiracy theory.
> What's an example of a claim that you think was considered a conspiracy theory pre-Snowden, that now isn't?
"The NSA has a giant secret building in the midwest where they store surveilance." "The US government is spying on US citizens."
I remember the pre-snowden discussions online and offline, and saying the US government was spying on US citizens was tinfoil hat territory. I even had conversations with government contractors who used the line, 'the government could never keep a secret that big'.
"The NSA has a giant secret building in the midwest where they store surveilance." "The US government is spying on US citizens."
I remember the pre-snowden discussions online and offline, and saying the US government was spying on US citizens was tinfoil hat territory. I even had conversations with government contractors who used the line, 'the government could never keep a secret that big'.
I would say it's the Dunning–Kruger effect that makes some people fall for such things but not others. At lest at the beginning. If someone once went down the rabbit hole they will start to question absolutely everything but that the fact that they could be wrong. And where you can't help them anymore with logic arguments. Logic build on what everyone agrees on like math, physics etc. But if you try to explain why the earth atmosphere isn't sucked away by the vacuum of space if there is no ceiling dome, you are lost if the other person questions gravity because that was invent by the Jews or whatever to [insert evil plan here].
Like all those who spouted the evidence free Russia-gate conspiracy theory? Thats a lot of mental health defects. I'm obviously being hyperbolic but you should get the point.
On a more serious note, it's important to remember the power of inductive logic in places where we lack evidence, such as in the conspiracy theory realm. Not everything has to be deductive, though of course it is preferred.
On a more serious note, it's important to remember the power of inductive logic in places where we lack evidence, such as in the conspiracy theory realm. Not everything has to be deductive, though of course it is preferred.
> Thats a lot of mental health defects.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23329867
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23329867
It’s a straw man against critical thinking. I don’t mind their example, global warming caused by people. What I do mind is them trying to dismiss conspiracy theorists because of it.
I remember pre-Snowden everyone called you a headcase if you said NSA is monitoring everything and everyone.
After Snowden, everyone mysteriously shut up about it.
I remember pre-Snowden everyone called you a headcase if you said NSA is monitoring everything and everyone.
After Snowden, everyone mysteriously shut up about it.
And then there was Epstein, even if the details were fuzzy...something nefarious was happening.
And famously Martin Luther King Jr, even Hemingway.
TL;DR: His friends were disturbed by his paranoia that the FBI was following him. But years later it turned out to be based on fact: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/opinion/02hotchner.html
TL;DR: His friends were disturbed by his paranoia that the FBI was following him. But years later it turned out to be based on fact: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/opinion/02hotchner.html
> a straw man against critical thinking
I like your summary. It has seemed like calling something 'conspiracy theory' has been, for many people, a comfortable dismissal. It's so much easier to believe the conspiracy theorist "needs help" than to accept that the NSA is monitoring everyone.
I like your summary. It has seemed like calling something 'conspiracy theory' has been, for many people, a comfortable dismissal. It's so much easier to believe the conspiracy theorist "needs help" than to accept that the NSA is monitoring everyone.
can the opposite also be true, that people who refuse to accept true conspiracies may also be anxious to preserve their worldview, ignore contradiction, and eschew rational analysis for emotion ladden thinking?
e.g. this is the popular portrayal of religious people who refuse to accept the claim their religions are massive lies made up to control and console
in which case these psycological factors may just be generally indicative of people who have trouble accepting the truth when it contradicts their cherished worldview, conspiracy or otherwise
on the other hand, if someone possesses this psychological makeup, and refuses to accept a certain proposition, i am not sure there is much we can conclude from this study. maybe they are being irrational, or maybe not. we would have to examine the actual reasons they reject the belief, and not rely on psychoanalysis, since if we did so it would ironically be irrational on our part
e.g. this is the popular portrayal of religious people who refuse to accept the claim their religions are massive lies made up to control and console
in which case these psycological factors may just be generally indicative of people who have trouble accepting the truth when it contradicts their cherished worldview, conspiracy or otherwise
on the other hand, if someone possesses this psychological makeup, and refuses to accept a certain proposition, i am not sure there is much we can conclude from this study. maybe they are being irrational, or maybe not. we would have to examine the actual reasons they reject the belief, and not rely on psychoanalysis, since if we did so it would ironically be irrational on our part
[deleted]
When i was little (14 or so) i used to read a lot about alien and Egyptian mummies conspiracy theories, about various phenomena and was fascinated by them. As i grew older i realised they were just stories. Wondering if some people never left that intellectual development stage. A certain degree of suspicion and caution around what governments do is healthy. But strongly believing there are microchips in vaccines, and 5G networks are meant to cause viruses that’s just adults with the analytical power of a child.
I think we all did that at that age. And there's nothing wrong with those stories, even as adults... as long as you realize they're not true.
Like, could you imagine if we could deploy microchips in vaccines? We're maybe 30-50 years away from nanotechnology that could operate in the human body like that, and it would be groundbreaking and revolutionary.
Or, could you imagine just getting gigabit wirelessly, even out in the sticks? It'd be absolutely amazing for accelerating the growth and connectivity of about one third of America, and revolutionize the economy, education, literally everything in those places.
The problem with conspiracy theorists is that a lot of their conspiracies depend on the emotional connection with technology fucking up their life. No, people fucked their lives up, technology just makes it faster, easier, and more efficient to do it.
I, on the other hand, am just disappointed that you can't actually torch a 5G tower... because there aren't any outside of very tiny test installations. What they've been torching have just been normal towers or long range LTE deployments.
Like, could you imagine if we could deploy microchips in vaccines? We're maybe 30-50 years away from nanotechnology that could operate in the human body like that, and it would be groundbreaking and revolutionary.
Or, could you imagine just getting gigabit wirelessly, even out in the sticks? It'd be absolutely amazing for accelerating the growth and connectivity of about one third of America, and revolutionize the economy, education, literally everything in those places.
The problem with conspiracy theorists is that a lot of their conspiracies depend on the emotional connection with technology fucking up their life. No, people fucked their lives up, technology just makes it faster, easier, and more efficient to do it.
I, on the other hand, am just disappointed that you can't actually torch a 5G tower... because there aren't any outside of very tiny test installations. What they've been torching have just been normal towers or long range LTE deployments.
Personally I hope nanotechnology can be used in vaccines, for targeting cells based on their genome - imagine a tiny machine that will attack exactly cancer cells, covid, hiv. One that we can program, inject and cure.
Also I see the validity behind concerns around vaccines - certainly mistakes can be made and some may not be beneficial.
Same for 5G and radio waves. In theory, strong radio can cause damage but the amounts would have to be enormous.
But of course I am talking about people whom like children exaggerate everything in their minds, good and bad, to the point where where they fear an imaginary cabal plotting to subdue them. Like Courage the Cowardly Dog which sees everything like an exaggeration coming to get him and his family.
So imo yes, there are emotional connections but those emotions are underdeveloped and exaggerated.
Also I see the validity behind concerns around vaccines - certainly mistakes can be made and some may not be beneficial.
Same for 5G and radio waves. In theory, strong radio can cause damage but the amounts would have to be enormous.
But of course I am talking about people whom like children exaggerate everything in their minds, good and bad, to the point where where they fear an imaginary cabal plotting to subdue them. Like Courage the Cowardly Dog which sees everything like an exaggeration coming to get him and his family.
So imo yes, there are emotional connections but those emotions are underdeveloped and exaggerated.
While self-aggrandizement is fun and empowering of course why not simply focus on the arguments for and against specific claims and skip the self-proclaimed measures of analytic power?
I used this as an example because i kept asking myself why would people be so ready to believe in conspiracies, then i remembered i used to believe them as well. For me personally it is a powerful example of how it works. I looked into how i grew from exaggerating everything in my mind to how i started asking questions and digging into why things are the way they are. I discovered that most conspiracy theories start from a valid concern and then diverge into a gross exaggeration and distortion of reality, much like when you are young and your mind cant process too much information and you resort to imagination and fear. I am not self proclaiming or self aggrandising I am merely stating what i observed.
The quantum magnetic dot is not exactly a microchip, but it does provide a weak signal that can be read electronically, and could be administered during a vaccination injection
UPDATE: here's the MIT article on their research. http://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-vaccine-history-skin-1218
"MIT engineers have developed a way to store medical information under the skin, using a quantum dot dye that is delivered, along with a vaccine, by a microneedle patch. The dye, which is invisible to the naked eye, can be read later using a specially adapted smartphone."
UPDATE: here's the MIT article on their research. http://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-vaccine-history-skin-1218
"MIT engineers have developed a way to store medical information under the skin, using a quantum dot dye that is delivered, along with a vaccine, by a microneedle patch. The dye, which is invisible to the naked eye, can be read later using a specially adapted smartphone."
What I read is that the so called quantum dot is just invisible ink.
A stamp that tells the next health care worker if a person has been vaccinated, when, the type...
My friend who believes in stuff like these seems to have a thinking impairment in some areas. He latches on to the first idea his mind likes and never lets go.
Example was two days ago. He downloaded GTA3 game.
The file was a 147mb 7zip archive. Which magically expanded 147mb expanded to over 2GB after he ran a batch file!
He immediately started singing the praise of 7zip.
Without knowing any detail I told him the uploader was the wizard not 7zip.
He sent me the setup.bat file and the stuff became clear.
The uploader converted wav to MP3. MPG videos to low quality MP4.
The setup.bat used ffmpeg to upscale things.
No logical explanation from me changed his mind.
Last straw, told him to uninstall 7Zip and run setup.bat.
That was the end of the discussion.
A stamp that tells the next health care worker if a person has been vaccinated, when, the type...
My friend who believes in stuff like these seems to have a thinking impairment in some areas. He latches on to the first idea his mind likes and never lets go.
Example was two days ago. He downloaded GTA3 game.
The file was a 147mb 7zip archive. Which magically expanded 147mb expanded to over 2GB after he ran a batch file!
He immediately started singing the praise of 7zip.
Without knowing any detail I told him the uploader was the wizard not 7zip.
He sent me the setup.bat file and the stuff became clear.
The uploader converted wav to MP3. MPG videos to low quality MP4.
The setup.bat used ffmpeg to upscale things.
No logical explanation from me changed his mind.
Last straw, told him to uninstall 7Zip and run setup.bat.
That was the end of the discussion.
Here's the research article from MIT.
http://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-vaccine-history-skin-1218
Reputable sources please?
MIT article on their research.
http://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-vaccine-history-skin-1218
Another ad hoc explanation is sold as science. Just because a group of people share some features, those set of features won't explain any thing.
I'm not convinced all the recent research on "conspiracy theorists" is objective science. It seems politically motivated to me.
What bugs me the most is that authoritarians will use this as "scientific proof" that people who question their government are mentally ill.
What bugs me the most is that authoritarians will use this as "scientific proof" that people who question their government are mentally ill.
It’s like talking to someone believing their cheating spouse did X, Y, Z crazy thing. If you responded to that person trying to debunk X, Y, and Z rationally you’d just anger them further. What matters is really the underlying anger that they’re feeling. Not litigating actual facts. In fact such litigating can feel like an attack or invalidation of the underlying emotion.
Same is true with feeling threatened by the appearance of “gracias” signs at a restaurant. Or a blue collar person losing status in an increasingly knowledge economy.
I feel like to make progress as a society we have to speak to the underlying “emotional truth” and not come across as pedants over facts.