The psychology of the CT believers

[trevor]

Debunk what?

it was a joke.

 

[Mick West]

it was a joke.

I figured I'd check

 

[deirdre]

i always laugh when i stumble across this video on youtube

there should be a warning label on that video dude. it worse than south park or family guy.

 

[benben]

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

 

[Critical Thinker]

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.

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

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. . . .

Content from External Source

 

[Critical Thinker]

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.

How do people or companies with vested interests spread ignorance and obfuscate knowledge? Georgina Kenyon finds there is a term which defines this phenomenon.

• By Georgina Kenyon

6 January 2016
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.

Content from External Source

Full article:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance

 

[Jazzy]

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.

How do people or companies with vested interests spread ignorance and obfuscate knowledge? Georgina Kenyon finds there is a term which defines this phenomenon.

• By Georgina Kenyon

6 January 2016
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.

Content from External Source

Full article:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance

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.
Nice one.

 

[JRBids]

I like that word!

"Instilling doubt" has always been a sales technique.

 

[tadaaa]

this is all beautifully examined in the wonderful documentary - released last year called

"Merchants of Doubt"

http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/


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

 

[tadaaa]

the full movie seem to be on youtube - I won't link (actually quality is poor anyway)

 

[john Mont]

This 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.

CTs are like a religion to some people

 

[StarshipBistroMath]

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.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

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.

 

[tinkertailor]

CTs are like a religion to some people

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.

 

[Marin B]

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 "

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.

Content from External Source

(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.


https://www.startalkradio.net/show/ufos-possible-aliens-seth-shostak-startalk-stars/

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.

Content from External Source

 

[Hama Neggs]

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 "

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.

Content from External Source

(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.

 

[BopBox]

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.



The post lasted about 15 minutes before Kusznir contacted the admin..




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.

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

 

[Critical Thinker]

IFreakingLoveScience covered a couple of studies on 'People Who Believe Conspiracy Theories':

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.

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

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:

http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000306

In recent years, psychologists have made significant
ground in understanding what draws people to conspiracy
theories. For example, personality traits such as

• 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.

In terms of cognitive processes, people with stronger
conspiracy beliefs are

• 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).

Conspiracy theories also appear to have important
consequences, such as

• 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).

Further, some research suggests that conspiracy
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).

Content from External Source

Then the actual thesis:

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.

Content from External Source

and conclusion

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.

Content from External Source

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.

 

[deirdre]

Why do they have need to be special? Doesn't everyone?

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.

 

[Ph_]

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.

Going further with that need to feel special, the following explains a bit why it's so difficult to get through to CTs

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.

Content from External Source

http://docdreyfus.com/psychologically-speaking/the-need-to-feel-special/

 

[Graham2001]

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.

 

[Rory]

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.

 

[cloudspotter]

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 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.

 

[Rory]

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.'

 

[Ph_]

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.

 

[Mick West]

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.'

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.

 

[Mick West]

McGurnicle's discussion of reactions to structural societal issues moved to:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/209402/

 

[Buzzerb]

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.

This is probably way off topic, but I saw mattstopchemtrails was noted as being in north brisbane. As a brisbanite myself, do you think some contrail footage could be helpful in proving that contrails are common here?

 

[Marin B]

I have a relative who believes in just about every conspiracy ever promoted except for flat earth (knock on wood...). This person sends me youtube videos, website links, etc. to try to enlighten me. Most recently I've been informed about an underground city in Antarctica. Supposedly it is where the Nazis used to work with the reptilian aliens to develop advanced UFO warfare, and it is now part of a secret U.S. space program. (seriously crazy stuff that actually makes flat earth sound not too far-fetched). I keep hearing the same names over and over again associated with this CT - Corey Goode, Michael Sala, David Wilcock and others. I noticed that they often cross-reference each other's websites, books, products, etc. So I suggested to my relative that maybe these people are working together to promote this CT so that they can continue to make money by selling books, giving lectures, getting youtube hits, etc. It seemed to me that for a brief few seconds my relative actually considered this possibility. I don't know if this would be considered reverse psychology, but it's the only CT counterpoint I've made in the past few years that has seemed to resonate with this person -- a conspiracy to promote a conspiracy.

 

[Critical Thinker]

From the European Journal of Social Psychology via ScienceAlert.

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.

Content from External Source

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.

Content from External Source

 

[Rory]

Article on the BBC website today about CT psychology:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180124-the-enduring-appeal-of-conspiracy-theories

Main points have all been addressed here before: desire for uniqueness; anxiety and a feeling of powerlessness; a need for order; rejection of science; distrust, perhaps stemming from parental relationships; etc.

Refers to quite a few studies, though, which might be useful.

Very interesting, too, that the author mentions a "pioneering experiment" which quizzed readers on online articles before they were allowed to comment on them, thereby ensuring that: a) they had actually read them; and b) that they understood them to some degree. Thing is, the page he links to is actually one which questions the results of the experiment.

How ironic.

 

[Willie]

I think the Gospel of Phillip example didn't fit very nicely.

 

[Rory]

I've been thinking a bit more lately about how best to engage with conspiracy theorists and others with faulty beliefs, and what my own role should be in this. I find less and less interest in engaging with them, which appears to be partly as a result of the apparent fruitlessness of it (for me, at least, and mostly thinking 'online'), and partly through a few recent real world interactions.

I recently shared a living space with a woman who told me, pretty soon after our initial meeting, that "they were spraying a lot that day". I didn't say anything, and I felt strangely good about that. I got to know her over the course of a few weeks and she was a nice kind woman and a wonderful and generous cook. I later found out, after she'd left, that both her and her husband were flat earthers. There was a very slight disappointment at a missed opportunity for a real-life debate (still never had one) but mainly I realised I doubt I would have bothered.

What would be the point? She wasn't a danger to herself or anyone. And, sure, her belief in chemtrails didn't seem to make her happy - but it seemed more like the belief was as a result of her already-present inner-fear, rather than the cause of it.

It's really been leading me on a course of contemplating all these various beliefs as a manifestation of an inner-state, and that my seeking to address faulty beliefs with "facts" isn't going to work. It's like trying to treat only the symptoms, rather than the illness. And I've also seen lately how tightly people cling to their beliefs, whether CT or otherwise, not because the fact of the thing serves them, but because it's somehow wrapped up in their deepest ideas of themselves and the world. Facts which threaten these beliefs, then, are experienced as an attack on the self, rather than harmless and interesting points for discussion, easily let go of when shown incorrect. It's no wonder they are resisted so strongly.

I thought this passage from a book called 'Cognitive-behavioural Therapy with Delusions and Hallucinations' was interesting:

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

Content from External Source

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."

While the issues addressed in this book are quite different and generally more deep-seated than the average conspiracy theorist, it does seem to tie in with my current line of thinking and strengthens my resolve to think more carefully when engaging in discussions that, while appearing to be about facts and beliefs, may actually be about self-identity and self-esteem - especially since I'm not really in a position to offer someone a replacement for the positive things they currently get from a belief in, for example, flat earth.

I've reflected on this before, but it seems I'm moving closer and closer to a place of "live and let live" - which seems like quite a nice place to be.

I'm also becoming more curious about "the psychology of debunkers" - and, of course, my own role in all this.

What's driving us? What potentially unrealised parts of our own psyches have got us involved in this game?

It seems stranger all the time to see the same youtube names - intelligent, talented people - giving so much time and energy to debating flat earth believers. Some are posting long videos almost daily. It must be an enormous investment. And all for engaging with people who are, for the most part, in completely different intellectual leagues, and clearly never going to concede an inch.

How satisfying can that be? What hole are they (and we) filling with all this? What would they do with themselves were debunking to suddenly become obsolete?

We've all mused on what the underlying motivations of the CTist may be - control, security, specialness, etc - and perhaps our own motivations aren't so far removed.

We're a curious bunch, interested in the deeper aspects of life - perhaps this is something we should get into?

Though I will say I absolutely think debunking has its place, and a valuable one at that - especially in the way that Mick and Metabunk, for the most part, goes about it. It seems to be the right way. It's ultimately creating a resource for people who are ready to go beyond false and limiting beliefs to dip into. It forces no one to change their minds. It doesn't stroll into their homes and invade their living spaces. Like the CBT mentioned above, it's help for those who want help - which, as we all know, is when help actually works.

Wrenching beliefs from others, on the other hand, doesn't work, and is more than a little rude - whether it's who did 9/11, various aspects of Christianity, or the non-existent connection between lunar and menstrual cycles. These people get something from all of this - and unless I have something to offer them that's better than what it is they're getting, I probably need to back off.

It's not facts and truth they're looking for. It's something a little more deep-seated than that.

As for whether we still need to enter their domains in order to counter the flow of misinformation and aid those teetering on the edge...yes, maybe we do - though I'm still not clear on that either. Being led astray is a two-person dance. Desiring facts and truth is not difficult to arrive at, given how high up metabunk is on google searches. Anyone really on the search for a correct explanation will find it.

Is it possible that people will always believe whatever they want to believe, and that all modification of those beliefs and their associated behaviours will always come from within?

I'm also starting to work more with developing an understanding that faulty beliefs are actually a tiny part of a person, and that their role in people's lives and the world is most likely blown out of proportion by the way they're presented to me, in videos, in forums, in articles, in news stories. If all I see of a woman on youtube are her DEW videos I might think she's cuckoo crazy. But perhaps that's just one hour of her week and the rest of the time she's out there having a laugh, being lovely, enjoying the planet, playing sports. Like the chemtrailer I met the other week: it just wasn't a defining feature.

Getting that in my head is something I'd like to work on more, along with contemplating what deeper need all of our beliefs are satisfying.

 

[deirdre]

I thought this passage from a book called 'Cognitive-behavioural Therapy with Delusions and Hallucinations' was interesting:

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?

A schizophrenic believing they are a secret service agent, a 4 year old girl or that their neighbor is their father in order not to have a mental breakdown from reality, is a bit different then a non-mentally ill woman believing a youtube video she watched.

In my 4 or so years looking into the CT world (hundreds of believers) there are only 2 people I would not engage vehemently because I believe their CT beliefs "may be" part of a larger serious mental issue. And even those people I would have no issue saying "actually, they are [airquotes] spraying [end airquotes] us everyday. The white lines are only due to temperature and high atmospheric humidity freezing the [airquote]spraying [end airquote] so that we visually see it. It's there whether you see it or not."

You are definitely overthinking things.

 

[Rory]

You are definitely overthinking things.

Nah. I think I'm thinking just about the right amount. Or maybe not quite enough.

 

[deirdre]

Nah. I think I'm thinking just about the right amount. Or maybe not quite enough.

well based on how you seem to be defining 'delusional', you may be 'delusional' so I won't argue with you.

 

[skephu]

Grandiose delusions often serve a very positive function for the person of maintaining or boosting their self-esteem.

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.

 

[benotto]

Rory. Read up on treating addictions like booze or drugs. From the varied type treatment centers with 80% success to independent studies with reported 5% success rates long term.

People only give up the addiction IF they are truly motivated be it cold turkey or deep religious counceling.

Any other belief is the same if a person has it. CT or a faith for the lucky ones that are assured salvation. From whatever evils they fear.

Some will never have that assurance and if beset by fears and doubts it could be scary.
Others take it as a challenge to discover and grow. Knowing full well he or she may only know a small portion of what is in this world to know.

You are right. Quiet respect of others that are not the same as yourself goes farther. Avoid the dangerous or destructive ones. Usually they will fail themselves far better than you could ever do to change them.

Yes. It is hard to live and let live in every case. Some just need YOUR GOOD EXAMPLE to change themselves and others will need to fix your goofy way of thinking, as they see you.

 

[Rory]

Based on how you seem to be defining 'delusional', you may be 'delusional' so I won't argue with you.

Well of course I'm delusional, to some degree. Who isn't?