4 ms·

I agree that there are probably some conspiracies, even statistically its bound to happen. People always have something to hide. Whats ridiculous though are the

I agree that there are probably some conspiracies, even statistically its bound to happen. People always have something to hide. Whats ridiculous though are the infowars type of sites that literally state everything is a conspiracy and that every action a government or cooperate official makes is to enslave people and make more profits.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
Oh yeah, those are ridiculous. The academic research was even valuable on how people fall into that trap. The double standards for media evidence was one of best points that I remember. So, Im not blanket supporting conspiracy claims so much as saying we need fo recognize the need for some and focus on how to evaluate them effectively.
astrodust 11y ago
These sites utterly fail to understand the difference between an active conspiracy and merely coincident interests for certain things to happen. For example, if an industry is predicated on certain things happening or not happening (e.g. military contractors being biased towards war) or denying certain facts (e.g. oil companies playing down global warming) it may seem like a widespread conspiracy but it's actually a bunch of independent actors with the same motivations or bias. There's also the fact that a large conspiracy needs a large motivating factor. A group of criminals conspiring to steal something has a very clear reward. The government spraying massive amounts of chemicals from airplanes to do...stuff...is hardly a compelling reason.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  "These sites utterly fail to understand the difference between an active conspiracy and merely coincident interests for certain things to happen." That's a good point. This happens a lot with oligopolies, too. Yet, there has been evidence that some of them collude in secret often through intermediaries to expedite this process. You usually see this with lobbyists but sometimes outright scandals like RAM price-fixing. So, coincident interests doesn't auto-eliminate possibility of a conspiratorial explanation but certainly should be the default belief for scheming, self-interested behavior. "The government spraying massive amounts of chemicals from airplanes to do...stuff...is hardly a compelling reason." I smirked at the wording. The amount of mythology around chemtrails mostly makes it a good example. Yet, you're off the mark on this one just as they are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray So, you can replace "stuff" with testing of bio-weapon systems and studies of disease impact on unwitting subjects with legal immunity. Not sure if any of the chemtrail claims or evidence overlapped with that as I didn't research it much. Yet, it's a fact that the U.S. military secretly (for a while) flew planes over U.S. cities that doused them with both chemicals and biological agents to support our biological and chemical weapons capabilities. There were many groups involved in that. They even blocked further investigation of all the incidents and those effected. So, we know what's revealed is a fraction of what went on but I'm not going to speculate size of that fraction. I just know there's more. This brings me to another facet of the problem: supporting irrational stuff with rational stuff. The fact that certain conspiracies and lies happened before seem to increase the likelihood people will believe a similar claim. "Of course they're doing chemtrails on us: remember Sea-Spray!? Why wouldn't they still be doing it?" That doesn't logically follow but does in many people's minds. Hell, it often does in reality so much we have the meme that "History Repeats." I think allowing recurring and similar rogue behavior in industry and governments plants many seeds for other, false beliefs to show up. Another reason to put an end to any schemes we identify. Affects signal-to-noise ratio of our ability to detect sneakier schemes. Good news is the biggest bullshiters in conspiracy claims are usually really full of shit. Obviously. They practically out themselves. Helpful to researchers like myself as we just filter them away.
- CapsAdmin 11y ago
  I like to apply this to pretty much everything that involves a lot of people making a product. Such as tripple a games, movies, toys, whatever. If too many people is involved and the outcome is bad it's easy for the consumer to blame the group/business/developers as a single entity thinking it made it bad on purpose somehow. Or it often seems to be implied that way because I guess we need to be able to blame someone for it.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Oh yeah, those are ridiculous. The academic research was even valuable on how people fall into that trap. The double standards for media evidence was one of best points that I remember. So, Im not blanket supporting conspiracy claims so much as saying we need fo recognize the need for some and focus on how to evaluate them effectively.

astrodust 11y ago

These sites utterly fail to understand the difference between an active conspiracy and merely coincident interests for certain things to happen. For example, if an industry is predicated on certain things happening or not happening (e.g. military contractors being biased towards war) or denying certain facts (e.g. oil companies playing down global warming) it may seem like a widespread conspiracy but it's actually a bunch of independent actors with the same motivations or bias. There's also the fact that a large conspiracy needs a large motivating factor. A group of criminals conspiring to steal something has a very clear reward. The government spraying massive amounts of chemicals from airplanes to do...stuff...is hardly a compelling reason.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
"These sites utterly fail to understand the difference between an active conspiracy and merely coincident interests for certain things to happen." That's a good point. This happens a lot with oligopolies, too. Yet, there has been evidence that some of them collude in secret often through intermediaries to expedite this process. You usually see this with lobbyists but sometimes outright scandals like RAM price-fixing. So, coincident interests doesn't auto-eliminate possibility of a conspiratorial explanation but certainly should be the default belief for scheming, self-interested behavior. "The government spraying massive amounts of chemicals from airplanes to do...stuff...is hardly a compelling reason." I smirked at the wording. The amount of mythology around chemtrails mostly makes it a good example. Yet, you're off the mark on this one just as they are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray So, you can replace "stuff" with testing of bio-weapon systems and studies of disease impact on unwitting subjects with legal immunity. Not sure if any of the chemtrail claims or evidence overlapped with that as I didn't research it much. Yet, it's a fact that the U.S. military secretly (for a while) flew planes over U.S. cities that doused them with both chemicals and biological agents to support our biological and chemical weapons capabilities. There were many groups involved in that. They even blocked further investigation of all the incidents and those effected. So, we know what's revealed is a fraction of what went on but I'm not going to speculate size of that fraction. I just know there's more. This brings me to another facet of the problem: supporting irrational stuff with rational stuff. The fact that certain conspiracies and lies happened before seem to increase the likelihood people will believe a similar claim. "Of course they're doing chemtrails on us: remember Sea-Spray!? Why wouldn't they still be doing it?" That doesn't logically follow but does in many people's minds. Hell, it often does in reality so much we have the meme that "History Repeats." I think allowing recurring and similar rogue behavior in industry and governments plants many seeds for other, false beliefs to show up. Another reason to put an end to any schemes we identify. Affects signal-to-noise ratio of our ability to detect sneakier schemes. Good news is the biggest bullshiters in conspiracy claims are usually really full of shit. Obviously. They practically out themselves. Helpful to researchers like myself as we just filter them away.
CapsAdmin 11y ago
I like to apply this to pretty much everything that involves a lot of people making a product. Such as tripple a games, movies, toys, whatever. If too many people is involved and the outcome is bad it's easy for the consumer to blame the group/business/developers as a single entity thinking it made it bad on purpose somehow. Or it often seems to be implied that way because I guess we need to be able to blame someone for it.