Discussion in 'Contrails and Chemtrails' started by TWCobra, Oct 12, 2012.
it was a joke.
I figured I'd check
there should be a warning label on that video dude. it worse than south park or family guy.
Being confrontational with strangers now ...
"Weather Update/ We're under Chemical attack!! I asked a sheep motorist who was heading towards ___ / corner of Main and ___ , if the sky looked normal to him. He said: "Looks normal to me!!", with an attitude, I replied: "Vogue Optical is that way!!" and walked away"
Then this today from someone with common sense
"1 of yous just sent me this "___ , if you truly want to educate people and bring change, I suggest you be a little more respectful towards people you call friends, calling them sheep (cheap) is not going to work. Have a great day!"
his response? more attacks and insults ... getting crazier every day
Based on what I have seen over the years, it appears that a significant distinction between Conspiracy theorists and Skeptics (aka debunkers/Critical Thinkers) is that Conspiracy theorists rely heavily on intuition/gut-instincts (and at times it seems voices in their head telling them things), whereas Skeptics/Debunkers rely on evidence and science in order to make sense of the world around them. At first I was thinking that I would like to see the people who rely so heavily on their intuition test how reliable that intuition is in a casino, where a majority of gamblers are relying on their intuition, much to their financial detriment. The next thought was that card counters who play Black Jack are more akin to Skeptics, in that they rely solely on the evidence available to them... that being, knowledge of; what cards are in a deck of cards, the rules of Black Jack, knowledge of what conditions would lead to the probability of different outcomes, and the current conditions at the moment (namely the cards that have been played and the cards remaining in the deck, that have a bearing on the current hand).
I would relate this Black Jack analogy to the Chemtrail Theorist's thinking in that, they may have the same observable conditions (the cards currently on display/a plane in the sky) as with a prior hand, but the outcome in most cases will vary greatly based on the other factors that are unknown to them (the cards that have been played already/prevailing conditions where the plane is flying). The 'moral' of the story is that we make better decisions when we accumulate as much relevant data as possible, rather than going off of a gut-feeling to make up for a lack of data.
From my own experiences in Vegas where I trusted my gut-feeling, I learned to be skeptical of gut-feelings and to rely on relevant evidence. There were a few times that I did win based on my gut feeling, which reinforced the notion that I ought to trust my gut-feeling, however those gut-feelings turned out to be wrong far far far more often than they were right and I realized that I would do better were I to disregard my intuition and stick to solid evidence based decision making.
Doing a Google search for information/research into a comparison of intuitive versus evidence based thinking I came across this article that addresses these two models of reaching decisions.
Excerpts from the Article on Brain Pickings.org
Interesting article from BBC Future: The man who studies the spread of ignorance
My new vocabulary word:
Agnotology (formerly agnatology) is the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.
That was new to me. I got the whole thing in my post, I think. Agnotology is a word I expect I shall be using in the future. I shall have to learn to teach my spellchecker, though.
I like that word!
"Instilling doubt" has always been a sales technique.
this is all beautifully examined in the wonderful documentary - released last year called
"Merchants of Doubt"
it has a great line in it - "once revealed never concealed"
it traces the anti-science agenda from the early 60's to the present day
the "playbook" used by the tobacco industry to cast doubt on the Cancer/Tobacco link is used today
after all "if you can "do" tobacco you can do anything"
from asbestos, to fire retardants, to Ozone, to AGW denial, the same players, the same methodology
doubt the science doubt the data
The tobacco industry knew the science was robust in the 60's - their own scientists said so
The Fossil fuel lobby knew the science was robust in the 90's - their own scientists said so
the full movie seem to be on youtube - I won't link (actually quality is poor anyway)
CTs are like a religion to some people
Why are these change agents publishing this nonsense on Chem-trails? What is the agenda? from #22
I have been questioning this as well. Do they not know their misinformation could create anxiety or do they not care? Are they doing this because they are cons? It may be different for each agent.
I have tried to explain the rationale as why earthquake forecasting/prediction is highly improbable in regards to Dutchsinse's work. Instead of I have received backlash from his followers, or from Dutch himself. His followers think he's the one telling them the "truth" and that certain organizations (USGS) are trying to hide earthquakes from them. All the while the followers seem to not recognize that Dutch gets his earthquake updates from these organizations and that earthquake data would not even be available without the USGS. He has also misreported a quake this past week, stating that M3.0+ hit Mt. Rainier. The raw data was received around 2am and wasn't updated until the following day, which it turned out that there were 2 smaller quakes. However it didn't matter, I punched in the original USGS coordinates from the clip Dutch showed and the raw data showed the quake happened south of Mt. Rainier and not on the volcano. Calling seismic activity on a volcano has the potential to cause a stir, and calling false seismic activity is something else. I even commented on his report that the quake didn't occur within 30km of Mt. Rainier. Nothing. If any of his followers simply took the coordinates from Dutch's post and zoomed in on Google maps... they would clearly see where the activity took place.
Pure and True Belief requires no further confirmation, and it certainly doesn't wish for scrutiny.
That and more.
When someone believes (or wants to believe) something as intently as some CTers do, they surround themselves in it. It becomes more than an opinion or belief when their friends and acquaintances share it, hours upon hours of their life are devoted to it, they think about it most the day, they try to get the word out all the time, etc.
Dropping the belief becomes complicated; it isn't a matter of just changing one's own beliefs but potentially losing friends, losing purpose, knowing that a great deal of their lives have been 'wasted' on the theory.
It must just be easier for them to keep denying, fabricating evidence, looking away, and believing.
I was reminded of this thread yesterday when I listened to an episode on StarTalk radio. The topic was belief in UFOs and alien visitation (more detailed description below). The guest host of the show, an astronomer from the SETI institute, made an observation about the strong conviction of believers regardless of the evidence (or lack thereof) and said " (rough quote from my own transcription of the podcast - taken at about minute 31).
From my own experience I think there's something to this.
Agree. There has always been an aspect of thinking that un-trained people can just 'figure stuff out' from simple personal observations. They try to apply that thinking to areas like astronomy with predictable results. They have no real idea how to do the careful and precise observations which would be necessary. Science is hard, but they want to think it's easy.
Hey there! I'm here today as someone who in the past has been subscribed to Peter Kuzsnir's YouTube channels and enjoyed hearing what he had to say even if it was out there in terms of subject matter. The spell was broken when I saw the way he responds to those who don't share his views or beliefs even those who respectfully disagree. Suddenly there is an anger outburst where he swears, hurls insults such as "c*ckbreath" or spits out fury with lines like "I don't give a f*ck what you think" and even more laughably asks the person to show proof for their views when he's working from an entirely subjective and unprovable viewpoint. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.
I'm always wary of those who have to resort to anger and attack those who simply hold a different view. He always has to be right as if he is the authority, the last word on everything. He comes across as a bully and he's barely intelligible when interviewed, lots of Word Salad and tangential ramblings, attempting to find connections in things which are purely coincidental. What you've gone through TWCobra doesn't surprise me. You said something he didn't like and he ensured your post was pulled. You're probably better off out of that site. A very recent video of his (not about chem trails) but about something he bangs on about with monotonous regularity could have been easily proved or disproved by him personally attending the scene just a few miles from where he lives but I feel he would rather believe in a lie than be faced with a truth that he might be uncomfortable with as you have experienced by offering to show him round planes to show him that chem trailing is not occurring.
I get the very strong feeling that people like PK need to believe in nefarious activities happening because they can't handle life on its own terms. I am no longer a believer in chem trails and instead opt to believe in a good world run by largely decent people who work for the greater good of humanity and not out to hurt and deceive us all of the time. That's not to say deceit doesn't occur, just that it's not the standard modus operandi of those who are in positions of power. This is a great site and I'm glad I found it. Ironically PK has led me to truth. Fancy that
IFreakingLoveScience covered a couple of studies on 'People Who Believe Conspiracy Theories':
That idea that conspiracists "just want to be unique" is a sweeping generalization not really supported by the papers cited or the intermediate Psypost article. The Lantian paper “I Know Things They Don’t Know!” gives several lists of different factors and consequences. Here I've reformatted the opening paragraphs to highlight the lists:
Then the actual thesis:
So essentially it's one of several possible factors.
It is, however, one borne out by the accounts of former believers (at least those with a degree of introspection). They often recognize that they had a feeling of specialness and importance when they started their journey down the rabbit hole.
The lists of "why" reasons are not necessarily root answers to the "why" question. "Why" begats "why", and while people may well be more likely to believe in conspiracy theories because they respond more to feeling special than other people, that is hardly the whole story. Why do they have need to be special? Doesn't everyone?
Clearly though, these factors play parts in the minds of conspiracists. Communication is based on understanding, and while it's difficult to use broad generalizations when dealing with individuals it's still a useful framework with which to approach the problem.
or perhaps the question is 'why choose cts to feel special?'. You can feel unique by becoming Wiccan, tattooing your body all over or piercing your face, going Goth (for one example), you can trun yourself into Barbie or a cat, you can excel at a certain intellectual skill or physical activity, you can become a real activist and/or advocate, etc etc.
Going further with that need to feel special, the following explains a bit why it's so difficult to get through to CTs
Something that came out of an email exchange with Sharon Hill, is that a lot of conspiracy/supernaturally oriented groups (UFO Believers, Chemtrailers, Alt-Medders, Anti-GMO Activists, et al) will often prioritize individual experience as being the best form of evidence and often use it as a way of dismissing criticism of their ideas and reinforce the group identity. The key phrase being "You have to have experienced it to have the right to comment on it." where 'it' is whatever bugbear the group has.
With regard to being a supposedly 'spiritually-inclined' person, I can tickbox pretty much all of those CT factors and traits.
Something to think about.
That sounds like a lot of hard work. Can't I just watch a video and Look Up?
Which I think is part of the issue these days; it's very easy to be a conspiracy theorist/activist with social media and video sharing.
That's true: being a CTer doesn't necessarily require anyone to actually do anything, other than maybe take in and believe certain information, and then perhaps have conversations about it. All Deirdre's examples, for instance, probably involve, at a bare minimum, leaving the house.
But...are CTer's necessarily lazy people? People who always take the easy option? I wouldn't say that's true, in my experience. Mainly I've met chemtrail believers, and they seem as as hardworking, energetic and involved as anyone. More than anything, they just seem sincerely afraid, and to truly believe based on what they feel is 'good, logical evidence.'
These are all just contributing factors.
It does not mean that someone, even if he has all contributing factors, automatically becomes a CT.
It just slightly nudges them in one way or another.
But maybe you only met the ones who left the house?
Of course some conspiracy theory believers do quite a bit of work. Some engage in a variety programs, some spend a lot of time making videos of their own. There's people who travel long distances to meet up with like minded believers. Some of the more eccentric will travel around trying to neutralize the effects of chemtrails with orgonite.
But like all things there's a spectrum, there's various types and various extremes.
McGurnicle's discussion of reactions to structural societal issues moved to:
Separate names with a comma.