4 ms·

Well, the concept here is that they're asking very simple unambiguous factual questions, so if you know what they "want you to say," then you at least know the

Well, the concept here is that they're asking very simple unambiguous factual questions, so if you know what they "want you to say," then you at least know the truth, even if you don't believe the truth. That is: If I ask you what's 3x3, for you to know that the answer that I want is 9, then you must know the truth. But I suppose there is some room for nuance. Like, take asking this question: "Has a human walked on the surface of the moon?" Let's suppose that Alfred answers that question with "No." Then you offer to pay Alfred if he answers the question correctly, and he changes his answer to "Yes." So, does Alfred actually know that people walked on the moon, and before he was just trolling or trying to get into the in-crowd of moon-landing deniers? Or is it that Alfred actually, sincerely believes that the moon-landing was a fake, but he knows that you likely believe that the moon-landing was real, and wants the payment?

aetherson 10y ago
That said, I don't really believe the moon-landing thing. Here's my logic: I'm talking to Alfred, moon-landing-truther. Alfred, I feel, is open in telling me how it works. He knows that I believe that the moon landing is real. He acknowledges that there is reason for me to believe that it is real -- he understands the conventional narrative. He explicitly argues his own (crazy) counter-narrative that subsumes the conventional narrative, reinterpreting the facts that I use. I've never heard anyone articulate a conspiracy theory around the example questions this study gave. Nobody has ever said to me -- not even online -- "Sure, it appears that inflation decreased during Reagan, but actually, here's the reason why that's a lie," nor "Sure, it appears that the deficit shrank during Clinton, but that's a lie." The closest that I've heard is two things: 1. A general belief that the media or the establishment lie or shill for Team X, without specifics. 2. Not on "inflation during Reagan" or "deficit during Clinton," but I do sometimes hear conspiracy theories that inflation is not actually currently low because the way that they calculate it and handle new inventions is a cheat, or that unemployment is not actually currently low because the proper measurement of unemployment is workforce participation.

aetherson 10y ago

That said, I don't really believe the moon-landing thing. Here's my logic: I'm talking to Alfred, moon-landing-truther. Alfred, I feel, is open in telling me how it works. He knows that I believe that the moon landing is real. He acknowledges that there is reason for me to believe that it is real -- he understands the conventional narrative. He explicitly argues his own (crazy) counter-narrative that subsumes the conventional narrative, reinterpreting the facts that I use. I've never heard anyone articulate a conspiracy theory around the example questions this study gave. Nobody has ever said to me -- not even online -- "Sure, it appears that inflation decreased during Reagan, but actually, here's the reason why that's a lie," nor "Sure, it appears that the deficit shrank during Clinton, but that's a lie." The closest that I've heard is two things: 1. A general belief that the media or the establishment lie or shill for Team X, without specifics. 2. Not on "inflation during Reagan" or "deficit during Clinton," but I do sometimes hear conspiracy theories that inflation is not actually currently low because the way that they calculate it and handle new inventions is a cheat, or that unemployment is not actually currently low because the proper measurement of unemployment is workforce participation.