So am I. It sounds to me like you're not entirely comfortable with that.
Cynicism plays no part in someone who thinks aliens made crop circles, or the govt was behind 9/11.
I've observed exactly the opposite. "THEY are lying to us.'
"THEY are withholding The Truth from us."
"THEY don't want us to know."
"Science doesn't want anybody changing the paradigm. (Yes, some of these people are obsessed with "paradigms" I've seen this.)
Sound familier? It should. It's cynicism. Granted, it's not ALL of the problem, but it's an important PART of the problem. It's there like it or not. If you want to understand it, you need to come to deal with every aspect of it.
No, I’m comfortable with your idea. Why would you think I was uncomfortable with it?
Cynicism is not the central tenet behind this Op Ed.
The main thrust is the imbalance of cognitive power in people, or a slight to moderate psychological issue.
I think your emphasis on cynicism is partly justified. I also think you are jumping at the chance to “poo poo” govt.
Look at your signature for example…the Big Brother thing…
I get that.
Again please tell me why you would think I was uncomfortable with your idea?
(excerpt):
Since a number of studies have shown that belief in conspiracy theories is associated with feelings of powerlessness, uncertainty and a general lack of agency and control, a likely purpose of this bias is to help people “make sense of the world" by providing simple explanations for complex societal events — restoring a sense of control and predictability.
That was me a few years ago.
Well entrenched in the CT way of thinking.
As Alan Moore put it...
"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless."
There's that, and it just made life more exciting; thinking that I was in on something that the sheeple weren't. That there was something more exciting going on other than my sh*tty job and the daily grind.
It's a horrible head-space to stay in for too long. You start blaming "them" for that sucks in your life.
"They're all idiots and that's why I'm angry at the world."
I ended up very depressed by the end of it and I think giving up conspiracies and paranormal beliefs is what saved me.
(excerpt):
Since a number of studies have shown that belief in conspiracy theories is associated with feelings of powerlessness, uncertainty and a general lack of agency and control, a likely purpose of this bias is to help people “make sense of the world" by providing simple explanations for complex societal events — restoring a sense of control and predictability.
That was me a few years ago.
Well entrenched in the CT way of thinking.
As Alan Moore put it...
"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless."
There's that, and it just made life more exciting; thinking that I was in on something that the sheeple weren't. That there was something more exciting going on other than my sh*tty job and the daily grind.
It's a horrible head-space to stay in for too long. You start blaming "them" for that sucks in your life.
"They're all idiots and that's why I'm angry at the world."
I ended up very depressed by the end of it and I think giving up conspiracies and paranormal beliefs is what saved me.
You make sense with that, King. I do think it all has to do with wanting to feel in control of a chaotic world.
Lois
Hello all,
This is my first post here. I’ve been an avid listener of the podcast for some time and decided to peruse the forums for a change. I enjoyed this article and the below excerpt really jumped out at me.
excerpt:
–The great philosopher Karl Popper argued that the fallacy of conspiracy theories lies in their tendency to describe every event as ‘intentional’ and ‘planned’ thereby seriously underestimating the random nature and unintended consequences of many political and social actions. In fact, Popper was describing a cognitive bias that psychologists now commonly refer to as the “fundamental attribution error": the tendency to overestimate the actions of others as being intentional rather than the product of (random) situational circumstances.–
I have a friend who is deeply involved with CTs. This seemed to have started a few years ago and while his initial focus was 9/11, it has quickly evolved into believing every possible theory that’s put forth.
Not a natural disaster, shooting or other such catastrophe exists that is random or caused by happenstance in his mind. The moment a disaster or tragedy occurs, like the Boston bombings, I can be sure there is already a CT out there that involves some sort of cover-up or planned act. It’s as if random acts simply cannot occur.
I’m not sure why people get into conspiracy theories. I’ve always thought part of it was boredom, the want to make the world more exciting and interesting and ego, believing that your smarter than the rest of the sheep.
The great philosopher Karl Popper argued that the fallacy of conspiracy theories lies in their tendency to describe every event as 'intentional' and 'planned' thereby seriously underestimating the random nature and unintended consequences of many political and social actions.
All I can say to this is there's no question Popper would have identified things like the WTC 7 collapse report as pseudo-science, as it fails the basic principles of scientific method he thought about so deeply: verifiability and falsifiability, for example. It was a forensic investigation that didn't actually examine a single piece of physical evidence from the building, and based its conclusions on a computer model that can't be verified and in any case is an extremely poor and partial representation of the facts.
Speaking for myself, I do not find it in the least bit comforting that the collapse of WTC 7 is now accepted and thought of as adequately explained by those who were even aware of it. It is disturbing in the extreme that the final report on WTC 7 is considered the last word on the subject by "most people" and I find the world to be more "chaotic" and "rudderless" that this is in fact the case. I don't subscribe to any other "conspiracy theories" and have no idea who "they" are if "they" did it, but I don't find that the NIST WTC 7 report adequately explains the video evidence in the slightest.
The great philosopher Karl Popper argued that the fallacy of conspiracy theories lies in their tendency to describe every event as 'intentional' and 'planned' thereby seriously underestimating the random nature and unintended consequences of many political and social actions.
All I can say to this is there's no question Popper would have identified things like the WTC 7 collapse report as pseudo-science, as it fails the basic principles of scientific method he thought about so deeply: verifiability and falsifiability, for example. It was a forensic investigation that didn't actually examine a single piece of physical evidence from the building, and based its conclusions on a computer model that can't be verified and in any case is an extremely poor and partial representation of the facts.
Speaking for myself, I do not find it in the least bit comforting that the collapse of WTC 7 is now accepted and thought of as adequately explained by those who were even aware of it. It is disturbing in the extreme that the final report on WTC 7 is considered the last word on the subject by "most people" and I find the world to be more "chaotic" and "rudderless" that this is in fact the case. I don't subscribe to any other "conspiracy theories" and have no idea who "they" are if "they" did it, but I don't find that the NIST WTC 7 report adequately explains the video evidence in the slightest.
There is no rule that if you--or anyone--can come up with scientifically sound refutations of the "final report" that "the government" will not allow it to be considered. It sounds as if you are suggesting a conspiracy behind the acceptance of the report. No one has been silenced, that's obvious. But I, for one, am tired of the constant stream of conspiracy theories that have no scientific evidence behind them and are nothing but mindless blather. Get some scientific support and intelligent people will listen. Or are you suggesting that a majority of respected scientists are in on the conspiracy to prevent a real investigation and conclusion? if so, you still need empirical evidence to draw that conclusion and I maintain that you don't have any.
The great philosopher Karl Popper argued that the fallacy of conspiracy theories lies in their tendency to describe every event as 'intentional' and 'planned' thereby seriously underestimating the random nature and unintended consequences of many political and social actions.
All I can say to this is there's no question Popper would have identified things like the WTC 7 collapse report as pseudo-science, as it fails the basic principles of scientific method he thought about so deeply: verifiability and falsifiability, for example. It was a forensic investigation that didn't actually examine a single piece of physical evidence from the building, and based its conclusions on a computer model that can't be verified and in any case is an extremely poor and partial representation of the facts.
Speaking for myself, I do not find it in the least bit comforting that the collapse of WTC 7 is now accepted and thought of as adequately explained by those who were even aware of it. It is disturbing in the extreme that the final report on WTC 7 is considered the last word on the subject by "most people" and I find the world to be more "chaotic" and "rudderless" that this is in fact the case. I don't subscribe to any other "conspiracy theories" and have no idea who "they" are if "they" did it, but I don't find that the NIST WTC 7 report adequately explains the video evidence in the slightest.
There is no rule that if you--or anyone--can come up with scientifically sound refutations of the "final report" that "the government" will not allow it to be considered. It sounds as if you are suggesting a conspiracy behind the acceptance of the report. No one has been silenced, that's obvious. But I, for one, am tired of the constant stream of conspiracy theories that have no scientific evidence behind them and are nothing but mindless blather. Get some scientific support and intelligent people will listen. Or are you suggesting that a majority of respected scientists are in on the conspiracy to prevent a real investigation and conclusion? if so, you still need empirical evidence to draw that conclusion and I maintain that you don't have any.You put too much on empirical evidence. We're not necessarily dealing with purely physical systems here, like a chemist or a physicist would be. For example, there is a video of the owner of WTC7 saying to someone on a phone, shortly before WTC7 went down, to "pull it" (or whatever the phrase is in demolition parlance). That in itself makes any conclusion about the building "just collapsing" suspicious. There are many many other examples, but there's a whole thread on this. My point is, it's easy to say "empirical evidence" as if there's some super duper gold standard of what that is, but in reality things aren't so clear cut.
The great philosopher Karl Popper argued that the fallacy of conspiracy theories lies in their tendency to describe every event as 'intentional' and 'planned' thereby seriously underestimating the random nature and unintended consequences of many political and social actions.
All I can say to this is there's no question Popper would have identified things like the WTC 7 collapse report as pseudo-science, as it fails the basic principles of scientific method he thought about so deeply: verifiability and falsifiability, for example. It was a forensic investigation that didn't actually examine a single piece of physical evidence from the building, and based its conclusions on a computer model that can't be verified and in any case is an extremely poor and partial representation of the facts.
Speaking for myself, I do not find it in the least bit comforting that the collapse of WTC 7 is now accepted and thought of as adequately explained by those who were even aware of it. It is disturbing in the extreme that the final report on WTC 7 is considered the last word on the subject by "most people" and I find the world to be more "chaotic" and "rudderless" that this is in fact the case. I don't subscribe to any other "conspiracy theories" and have no idea who "they" are if "they" did it, but I don't find that the NIST WTC 7 report adequately explains the video evidence in the slightest.
There is no rule that if you--or anyone--can come up with scientifically sound refutations of the "final report" that "the government" will not allow it to be considered. It sounds as if you are suggesting a conspiracy behind the acceptance of the report. No one has been silenced, that's obvious. But I, for one, am tired of the constant stream of conspiracy theories that have no scientific evidence behind them and are nothing but mindless blather. Get some scientific support and intelligent people will listen. Or are you suggesting that a majority of respected scientists are in on the conspiracy to prevent a real investigation and conclusion? if so, you still need empirical evidence to draw that conclusion and I maintain that you don't have any.You put too much on empirical evidence. We're not necessarily dealing with purely physical systems here, like a chemist or a physicist would be. For example, there is a video of the owner of WTC7 saying to someone on a phone, shortly before WTC7 went down, to "pull it" (or whatever the phrase is in demolition parlance). That in itself makes any conclusion about the building "just collapsing" suspicious. There are many many other examples, but there's a whole thread on this. My point is, it's easy to say "empirical evidence" as if there's some super duper gold standard of what that is, but in reality things aren't so clear cut.
Which is exactly what every conspiracy theorist says about his favorite conspiracy. No facts, just suspicions and a few ambigious statements. That's all conspiracy teorists need, according to them.
Hello all,
This is my first post here. I've been an avid listener of the podcast for some time and decided to peruse the forums for a change. I enjoyed this article and the below excerpt really jumped out at me.
excerpt:
--The great philosopher Karl Popper argued that the fallacy of conspiracy theories lies in their tendency to describe every event as 'intentional' and 'planned' thereby seriously underestimating the random nature and unintended consequences of many political and social actions. In fact, Popper was describing a cognitive bias that psychologists now commonly refer to as the “fundamental attribution error": the tendency to overestimate the actions of others as being intentional rather than the product of (random) situational circumstances.--
I have a friend who is deeply involved with CTs. This seemed to have started a few years ago and while his initial focus was 9/11, it has quickly evolved into believing every possible theory that's put forth.
Not a natural disaster, shooting or other such catastrophe exists that is random or caused by happenstance in his mind. The moment a disaster or tragedy occurs, like the Boston bombings, I can be sure there is already a CT out there that involves some sort of cover-up or planned act. It’s as if random acts simply cannot occur.
I'm not sure why people get into conspiracy theories. I've always thought part of it was boredom, the want to make the world more exciting and interesting and ego, believing that your smarter than the rest of the sheep.
Good points. I would add a possibly evolved tendency to over-attribute threats. e.g., Our ancestors who interpreted the wind rustling in the grass as a lurking predator, and took evasive action, may have survived to reproduction better than their contemporaries, because every once in a long while, there actually was a lurking predator making the rustling sound.
Those are good points TimB.
I still think the main emphasis on what we are seeing with alot of this stuff…including here in this Forum, is what Lois and others described above.
It’s a kind of mania. It’s events that “shock” a persons ability to grasp determinate events as they happen. So to reckon with these “shocks” I think they like to create an alternate theory as a way of coping with it.
Very important also to note is the following:
Every single person didn’t come to these alternate ideas by themselves. They heard the ideas or had the idea suggested to them.
Then they attach themselves to the idea and expound on it.
Substituting an even more fantastic theory than what reality provides, gives a kind of shelter from the fact that truth is stranger than fiction.
Blaming an amorphous entity like government also relieves the theorist of having to be specific again.
It seems the government always knows about the conspiracy…but they are keeping it a secret.
...there is a video of the owner of WTC7 saying to someone on a phone, shortly before WTC7 went down, to "pull it" (or whatever the phrase is in demolition parlance). That in itself makes any conclusion about the building "just collapsing" suspicious.
Which has already been explained quite adequately (a long time ago) and is one of the sadder "truther" lines/lies.
Every single person didn't come to these alternate ideas by themselves. They heard the ideas or had the idea suggested to them.
Then they attach themselves to the idea and expound on it.
Definitely agree with this. Initially when my friend started with these CT's, I would often attempt to reason or debate with him. He simply would brush me off as being too naive and point me to his news websites.
These CT sites seem like small industries unto themselves. Pumping out their version of every news story that comes along. It's easy to see how people can get sucked into it, these sites offer a place where people can discuss these issues with only those who share their opinion.
The idea that these beliefs may come from a sort of survival instinct is an interesting thought as well. I've never considered that. I do think the idea of order from chaos makes a lot of sense as well.
So to reckon with these "shocks" I think they like to create an alternate theory as a way of coping with it.
As I said, I am not personally comforted by the explanation offered by the final WTC 7 report any more than I am by the supposed lack of evidence for other theories. There is of course another thread to deal with the specifics of what aspects of the official explanation are troublesome, Lois, but for me the bare fact that the investigation "lost" all the physical evidence -- in the form of steel from the building, which had earlier been subject to preliminary tests that found it had been subject to a strange corrosive attack -- and so came to its conclusions without examining any physical evidence at all is enough for it to be in question. It doesn't make me happy to increasingly feel that the investigation was deeply flawed. I don't feel superior or in possession of special knowledge. It is, frankly, disturbing and depressing, and I do not like it.
There is an existing thread for the discussion of the specific WTC7 conspiracy issues. But point taken that belief in conspiracies may not be motivated by bringing one a sense of comfort.
But point taken that belief in conspiracies may not be motivated by bringing one a sense of comfort.
I by no means think it's the same for every conspiracy theorist.
But this idea rings true with me, as an ex conspiracy theorist.
I think the notion of people finding comfort in conspiracies (which is something even the believer wouldn't know, because they'd have to confront themselves and why they believe these things - something that true believers avoid) applies more to those people that lap up every conspiracy under the sun. You know, people who have a conspiracy for every earthquake, weather event, election, mass shooting etc.
There is an existing thread for the discussion of the specific WTC7 conspiracy issues. But point taken that belief in conspiracies may not be motivated by bringing one a sense of comfort.
I think the point generally is good one: I would suggest that humans have the great evolutionary advantage of being able to recognise patterns in their environment, and by this gain a tremendous measure of control over some of it--but this pattern-recognising ability also leads to superstitions, irrational beliefs and conspiracy theories where we do not or cannot have complete knowledge of the events we are confronted by. These false "patterns" may give "comfort" but clearly cannot be true for that reason.
There is an existing thread for the discussion of the specific WTC7 conspiracy issues. But point taken that belief in conspiracies may not be motivated by bringing one a sense of comfort.
I think the point generally is good one: I would suggest that humans have the great evolutionary advantage of being able to recognise patterns in their environment, and by this gain a tremendous measure of control over some of it--but this pattern-recognising ability also leads to superstitions, irrational beliefs and conspiracy theories where we do not or cannot have complete knowledge of the events we are confronted by. These false "patterns" may give "comfort" but clearly cannot be true for that reason.
Indeed, my deah suh! (accent referencing your avatar :) )
We can thank the internet for this preponderance of CT in our culture. Yeah, it was there before, but it was relegated mainly to people who read books.
A little word of mouth, a little JFK, A little UFO…
Now? Trash culture!! Everything is a conspiracy. Everybody knows the “facts” about everything!