trevor
Active Member
it was a joke.Debunk what?
it was a joke.Debunk what?
i always laugh when i stumble across this video on youtube
My intuition is saying there is something faked. I dont know what it is. Almost like she is too comfortable there. But then again, it is not every day I see something like that of course to compare.
External Quote:
How Our Minds Mislead Us: The Marvels and Flaws of Our Intuition
"The confidence people have in their beliefs is not a measure of the quality of evidence but of the coherence of the story that the mind has managed to construct."
One of the most fascinating examples of heuristics and biases is what we call intuition — a complex cluster of cognitive processes, sometimes helpful but often misleading. Kahneman notes that thoughts come to mind in one of two ways: Either by "orderly computation," which involves a series of stages of remembering rules and then applying them, or by perception, an evolutionary function that allows us to predict outcomes based on what we're perceiving. (For instance, seeing a woman's angry face helps us predict the general sentiment and disposition of what she's about to say.) It is the latter mode that precipitates intuition.
Type 1 is automatic, effortless, often unconscious, and associatively coherent. . . . Type 2 is controlled, effortful, usually conscious, tends to be logically coherent, rule-governed. Perception and intuition are Type 1. … Type 2 is more controlled, slower, is more deliberate. . . . Type 2 is who we think we are. [And yet] if one made a film on this, Type 2 would be a secondary character who thinks that he is the hero because that's who we think we are, but in fact, it's Type 1 that does most of the work, and it's most of the work that is completely hidden from us.
The Type 1 modality of thought gives rise to a System 1 of interpretation, which is at the heart of what we call "intuition" — but which is far less accurate and reliable than we like to believe:
System 1 infers and invents causes and intentions. [This] happens automatically. Infants have it. . . . We're equipped … for the perception of causality.
It neglects ambiguity and suppresses doubt and … exaggerates coherence. Associative coherence [is] in large part where the marvels turn into flaws. We see a world that is vastly more coherent than the world actually is. That's because of this coherence-creating mechanism that we have. We have a sense-making organ in our heads, and we tend to see things that are emotionally coherent, and that are associatively coherent.
But the greatest culprit in the failures of our intuition is another cognitive property Kahneman names "what you see is all there is" — a powerful and persistent flaw of System-1 thinking:
This is a mechanism that takes whatever information is available and makes the best possible story out of the information currently available, and tells you very little about information it doesn't have. So what you get are people jumping to conclusions. I call this a "machine for jumping to conclusions."
This jumping to conclusions, Kahneman adds, is immediate and based on unreliable information. And that's a problem:
That will very often create a flaw. It will create overconfidence. The confidence people have in their beliefs is not a measure of the quality of evidence [but] of the coherence of the story that the mind has managed to construct. Quite often you can construct very good stories out of very little evidence. . . . People tend to have great belief, great faith in the stories that are based on very little evidence.
Most treacherous of all is our tendency to use our very confidence — and overconfidence — as evidence itself:
What's interesting is that many a time people have intuitions that they're equally confident about except they're wrong. That happens through the mechanism I call "the mechanism of substitution." You have been asked a question, and instead you answer another question, but that answer comes by itself with complete confidence, and you're not aware that you're doing something that you're not an expert on because you have one answer. Subjectively, whether it's right or wrong, it feels exactly the same. Whether it's based on a lot of information, or a little information, this is something that you may step back and have a look at. But the subjective sense of confidence can be the same for intuition that arrives from expertise, and for intuitions that arise from heuristics. . . .
Full article:External Quote:How do people or companies with vested interests spread ignorance and obfuscate knowledge? Georgina Kenyon finds there is a term which defines this phenomenon.
6 January 2016
- By Georgina Kenyon
In 1979, a secret memo from the tobacco industry was revealed to the public. Called the Smoking and Health Proposal, and written a decade earlier by the Brown & Williamson tobacco company, it revealed many of the tactics employed by big tobacco to counter "anti-cigarette forces".
In one of the paper's most revealing sections, it looks at how to market cigarettes to the mass public: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."
This revelation piqued the interest of Robert Proctor, a science historian from Stanford University, who started delving into the practices of tobacco firms and how they had spread confusion about whether smoking caused cancer.
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.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.
Full article:External Quote:How do people or companies with vested interests spread ignorance and obfuscate knowledge? Georgina Kenyon finds there is a term which defines this phenomenon.
6 January 2016
- By Georgina Kenyon
In 1979, a secret memo from the tobacco industry was revealed to the public. Called the Smoking and Health Proposal, and written a decade earlier by the Brown & Williamson tobacco company, it revealed many of the tactics employed by big tobacco to counter "anti-cigarette forces".
In one of the paper's most revealing sections, it looks at how to market cigarettes to the mass public: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."
This revelation piqued the interest of Robert Proctor, a science historian from Stanford University, who started delving into the practices of tobacco firms and how they had spread confusion about whether smoking caused cancer.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance
CTs are like a religion to some peopleThis guy is a perfect example of when a chemrailer thinks he has made a "great discovery", is now a "great researcher", and posesses "special knowledge".
Confirmation bias to the extreme, and if his peers agree, ego-strokes to boot.
I don't know if this helps.
Pure and True Belief requires no further confirmation, and it certainly doesn't wish for scrutiny.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.
That and more.CTs are like a religion to some people
(rough quote from my own transcription of the podcast - taken at about minute 31).External Quote:it becomes emotional, and I think that part of that is because here's a case where somebody who maybe doesn't have advanced degrees in science or any of that sort of stuff... that they know something that's really important that those nerdy pointy-headed, jacket-wearing academics down at the local university don't know, and it's empowering.
External Quote:
About This Episode
Seth Shostak, SETI Institute Senior Astronomer and StarTalk veteran, discovers what it's like to host StarTalk All-Stars when he welcomes noted skeptic Ben Radford and new comic co-host Ray Ellin to discuss unidentified flying objects, government cover-ups, anal probes, and space-faring dinosaurs. Discover the true story of the Roswell incident, including how a series of public relations mistakes by uninformed local military and government personnel turned a top-secret program to monitor nuclear tests by the Soviet Union, code-named Project Mogul, into the greatest conspiracy theory of our time. In response to fan-submitted cosmic queries chosen by Ray, Seth and Ben discuss, debunk and dismiss everything from crop circles, Area 51 and the infamous "alien autopsy" to the supposedly secret, subterranean joint human/alien government base harboring Bigfoot, the chupacabra, and multiple species of aliens below Dulce, New Mexico. Find out what the protocols are for an actual alien encounter, and how the real world and the media make them practically meaningless. You'll also hear what questions Seth would ask an alien, and how he thinks we might be able to communicate with them should they show up. Finally, explore some of the psychology behind the third of the U.S. public who believe UFOs are really alien visitors, the people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, the role of the "Men in Black," and the apparent alien fascination with cow anuses.
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).External Quote:it becomes emotional, and I think that part of that is because here's a case where somebody who maybe doesn't have advanced degrees in science or any of that sort of stuff... that they know something that's really important that those nerdy pointy-headed, jacket-wearing academics down at the local university don't know, and it's empowering.
From my own experience I think there's something to this.
Peter Kusznir is a case in point. His latest video is entitled "Major troll alert".
Source: http://youtu.be/l24USO3ywSo
In the washup to the Chemtrail article in News Ltd I became aware that some comment was posted on a CT website, based in NZ called the Con-Trail.com. The site uses usernames (Kusznir himself posts as Peter K), so I picked one and made one post where I fully identified myself. The post is presented in full below.
View attachment 1123
The post lasted about 15 minutes before Kusznir contacted the admin..
View attachment 1124
Shortly afterwards the post was removed and my username banned.
I was told by another user that the post was put back on the site the next day. I wanted to see the response so rejoined as another username, but made no posts.
So that is the basis for this "Major Troll alert". I know I said I wasn't referring to anyone in particular with the room temperature IQ's remark but Kusznir and his mate Matt McInnes, who apparently believes all the LinkedIn profiles from around the world with my name, are me, must be prime contenders.
Kusznir makes no reference to the fact that I have contacted him with offers to show him the QF63 being prepared for flight. That I have offerred to try to accomodate any request he may make to try to explain what he is seeing in other terms than "Chemtrails". He hasn't replied directly but his response here speaks volumes.
The man is an idiot and I will content myself with documenting the threats made on his youtube channel to be passed on to the lawyers of the first pilots harmed in any way by the urgings and rantings of this imbecile.
Sorry if this violates the politeness policy, but enough is enough.
BTW Peter, that IP is incorrect. I don't have a static IP but a broadband connection will stay on the same IP till disconnected.
External Quote:
People Who Believe Conspiracy Theories Just Want To Be Unique, Say Psychologists
Now, two separate studies have suggested why people think the Moon landings were faked, vaccines cause autism, and more. They suggest people might believe in conspiracy theories in order to feel unique.
As picked up by PsyPost, the two studies are available in Social Psychology and the European Journal of Social Psychology.
...
The former was titled "I know things they don't know!". More than 1,000 people took part. The researchers found that people who supported conspiracy theories were more likely to think they had information no one else had.
...
In the second study, more than 1,000 participants were also used. Titled "Too special to be duped", it found that the desire to stick out from the crowd drove irrational beliefs.
Then the actual thesis:External Quote:
In recent years, psychologists have made significant
ground in understanding what draws people to conspiracy
theories. For example, personality traits such as
In terms of cognitive processes, people with stronger
- openness to experience (Swami, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2010; Swami et al., 2011),
- distrust (Abalakina-Paap, Stephan, Craig, & Gregory, 1999; Goertzel, 1994; Wagner-Egger & Bangerter, 2007),
- low agreeability (Swami et al., 2010, 2011),
- narcissism (Cichocka, Marchlewska, & Golec de Zavala, 2016),
- and Machiavellianism (Douglas & Sutton, 2011) are associated with conspiracy belief.
conspiracy beliefs are
Conspiracy theories also appear to have important
- more likely to overestimate the likelihood of co-occurring events (Brotherton & French, 2014),
- to attribute intentionality where it is unlikely to exist (Brotherton & French, 2015; Douglas, Sutton, Callan, Dawtry, & Harvey, 2016),
- and to have lower levels of analytic thinking (Swami, Voracek, Stieger, Tran, & Furnham, 2014).
consequences, such as
Further, some research suggests that conspiracy
- negatively influencing health decisions (Jolley & Douglas, 2014a; Oliver & Wood, 2014),
- decreasing intentions to engage in politics (Butler,Koopman, & Zimbardo, 1995; Jolley & Douglas, 2014b),
- increasing people's desire to leave their workplace (Douglas & Leite, in press),
- and reducing environmental behavioral intentions (Douglas & Sutton, 2015; Jolley & Douglas, 2014b; Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2013; van der Linden, 2015).
theories may perform certain functions for the self, allowing
people to regain a sense of
- control (van Prooijen & Acker, 2015; Whitson & Galinsky, 2008),
- order (van Harreveld, Rutjens, Schneider, Nohlen, & Keskinis, 2014),
- power (Gray, 2010; Sapountzis & Condor, 2013),
- and to relieve death anxiety (Newheiser, Farias, & Tausch, 2011).
and conclusionExternal Quote:
The current research aims to further contribute to current knowledge about the personal needs that may be satisfied by conspiracy belief. Among the self-related motivations that could influence belief in conspiracy theories, we will argue that the need for uniqueness should play a role in people's adherence to conspiracy theories. More specifically, our general claim is that people with a high need for uniqueness should be more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.
So essentially it's one of several possible factors.External Quote:
To conclude, the converging evidence presented in this paper demonstrates that believing in conspiracy
theories may be a way to satisfy one's need for uniqueness. Conspiracy theories are likely to appeal more to people who have a chronic need to feel different to others, or who are led to feel that uniqueness is an important trait. In each case, we argue that conspiracy theories place people in possession of unconventional and scarce information that
allows them to feel unique compared to others. More generally, our work also demonstrates that the needs of the self should be taken into consideration for a more complete understanding of the functions of conspiracist thought.
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.Why do they have need to be special? Doesn't everyone?
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.
http://docdreyfus.com/psychologically-speaking/the-need-to-feel-special/External Quote:
I don't believe these individuals are mean-spirited or selfish. I do not believe that they are trying to take advantage of me. In my experience, these folks are hurting, damaged individuals, who never really felt special to anyone. Their inner child craves being special. They experience minor slights as major assaults. No matter how much people may have filled their "love bucket" as adults, the slightest injury is sufficient to drain the bucket. It is as if their love bucket has a slow leak, leaving them running on empty most of the time. Hence, when injured, disappointed, or hurt they feel devastated; it is often sufficient for them to want to terminate the relationship, whether with a friend, relative, or therapist.
It is often difficult to connect with them when in the midst of their hurt. They can only focus on the specific circumstance rather than focusing on their internal experience without blaming the person who disappointed them. Self-examination at the moment is not possible for them. They simply sit with a sense of self-righteousness that they should have been treated so poorly. In order for healing to occur, they must be able to fully experience their pain and their desire to feel special, to feel number #1 among others, friends, siblings, or patients. Their sense of self-worth depends on their ability to be special.
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.
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.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.
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.'
Can anyone here explain it to a layman?
Example: MattStopChemtrails. I pick Matt because he is a fellow Australian, deeply committed and apparently there is something very strange in his psychological makeup. Matt is reknown for applying the parameters of the Appleman graph incorrectly, using the sea level temperatures and RH values to "prove" that contrails can never exist in sub-tropical Queeensland where he lives. Apparently there is no air-traffic either where he lives, just north of Brisbane. I have have not shown him the Australian visualization produced by Mick yet, but only because I suspect that his "filtering mechanisms" will simply not allow his brain to process the information.
External Quote:
Conspiracy Theorists Really Do See The World Differently, New Study Shows
Do you see the connections?
SIGNE DEAN
23 OCT 2017
To a conspiracy theorist, the world is not what it seems. Invisible threads link seemingly unrelated concepts, and there's no such thing as a random coincidence.
Researchers have been scratching their heads for years over what makes some people more conspiratorially inclined. Now a recent study has finally tracked down one of the faulty thinking patterns. As it turns out, we all use it - but these people use it too much.
A team of psychologists from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands and the University of Kent in the UK has determined that conspiracy theorists are hooked on something called 'illusory pattern perception'.
"People often hold irrational beliefs, which we broadly define here as unfounded, unscientific, and illogical assumptions about the world," the team writes in the study.
"Although many irrational beliefs exist, belief in conspiracy theories and belief in the supernatural are particularly prevalent among ordinary, nonpathological citizens."
In other words, conspiracy theorists are not "nuts". They're totally sane, which makes their beliefs all the more puzzling - until we realise that they actually see the world quite differently.
Illusory pattern perception is a pretty simple concept. It happens whenever we find a meaningful pattern in random stimuli, drawing correlations and even causation where none has actually occurred.
External Quote:
Overall, this study has generated some pretty compelling evidence that our need to make sense of the world by generating patterns really goes into overdrive in those who veer towards conspiracy theories.
"We conclude that illusory pattern perception is a central cognitive ingredient of beliefs in conspiracy theories and supernatural phenomena," the team writes.
The preceding passage also states that "If, at any time during therapy, it appears that the person does not want to lose their delusional beliefs or hallucinations, or is ambivalent about losing them, then therapy should be suspended immediately."External Quote:Grandiose delusions should be approached with great caution. It is probable that a grandiose delusion will not be distressing to the patient. Modification should only be attempted if the potential benefits of doing so clearly outweigh the possible disadvantages. The fact that a belief is delusional is never sufficient reason on its own for imposing treatment.
Grandiose delusions often serve a very positive function for the person of maintaining or boosting their self-esteem. Therefore, if there are other clear benefits to be gained from modifying a grandiose delusion, then you must seek to determine what the potential effects of removing the grandiose delusion will be on self-esteem, and to work to build up self-esteem from other sources before attempting the modification.
https://books.google.es/books?id=VfF6Qq4yxEMC&pg=PA82
While I don't care if you choose to 'live and let live' with the people you encounter, I gotta say your quote is some SERIOUS cherry picking of the book you linked. Did someone send you that quote or did you actually read the book?I thought this passage from a book called 'Cognitive-behavioural Therapy with Delusions and Hallucinations' was interesting:
Nah. I think I'm thinking just about the right amount. Or maybe not quite enough.You are definitely overthinking things.
well based on how you seem to be defining 'delusional', you may be 'delusional' so I won't argue with you.Nah. I think I'm thinking just about the right amount. Or maybe not quite enough.![]()
This is acceptable in a psychology book but we should consider more than just the psychological well-being of the individual. On the whole, CTs seem to have a rather destructive effect on society. So a person making youtube videos and thus potentially converting thousands of others to conspiracy beliefs is not something totally harmless.Grandiose delusions often serve a very positive function for the person of maintaining or boosting their self-esteem.
Well of course I'm delusional, to some degree. Who isn't?Based on how you seem to be defining 'delusional', you may be 'delusional' so I won't argue with you.