6 ms·

This view is too simplistic. Many people believe that truths are being hidden from them or intentionally distorted. Distrust of the media and belief in conspira

This view is too simplistic. Many people believe that truths are being hidden from them or intentionally distorted. Distrust of the media and belief in conspiracy theories are rampant. So it's not rejection of facts, it's rejection of the corrupt elites that are reporting them. Obviously I don't believe this and I find it hard to empathize with these folks. I spent the holidays listening to my cousin tell me how naive I was for believing what I read in the New York Times, then rant for hours about how mass shootings are all staged hoaxes.

vosper 10y ago
I am constantly surprised by how many intelligent, generally rational people I meet also believe in (what I consider) absurd conspiracy theories. I've had people talk to me seriously about chemtrails, free energy devices being suppressed by oil company assassins, flouride in the water for mind control...
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Conspiracy theories are sort of a hobby of mine - I've gone from feeling disappointed that they almost never turn out to be true (since they often make interesting claims) to fascination with why people believe them. Most conspiracy theories start with a false premise to which logic is then applied -often correctly. A trivial example popular among geeky music lovers is that instruments and whole compositions sound better tuned to 432Hz rather than the more common 440Hz. Much effort i devoted to showing why 432 is more numerically interesting than 440, and since 99% of music is about the juxtaposition of numerically interesting frequency rations, the arguments are superficially quite convincing, especially from an aesthetic point of view. Where it falls down is right at the beginning - not in the idea that 432 is an interesting number (it is) but in the idea that 432 cycles per second is important. People tend to forget that the second is a pretty arbitrary time division; we're just used to think about time as a fact because it is convenient in everyday life. Pro musicians and sound engineers are constantly thinking about frequencies to the quantity of a second comed to seem as real as the pull of earth's gravity to an aerospace engineer. In my experience, the longer the argument between an initial false premise and the conclusion, the more firmly the proponent will resist attacks on the theory, perhaps because it has required a higher initial investment of work to validate all the logical steps.
  - jacobolus 10y ago
    432 Hz is (by definition) once every 21279240 + 5/24 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. Super aesthetically critical number right there.
    - Intermernet 10y ago
      But only at zero Kelvin. Once you punch that Caesium 133 up to room temperature you need the extra 8Hz to achieve aesthetic purity. On really hot days, you need to go to 440.1 or even 440.2.
ericdykstra 10y ago
I don't believe everything I read in any publication, especially not one that employs Paul Krugman. I also don't believe conspiracy theories that don't have hard evidence. There is plenty of criticism of mainstream media done by people who cite all their sources and have intellectually honest arguments. Don't conflate the absence of unfettered trust in the media with flat-earthers. Skepticism is healthy.
- yks 10y ago
  Can you give an example of Krugman lying (not failing predictions and not personal opinions)? I agree though that he writes in offensive way to conservatives.
  - ericdykstra 10y ago
    He uses his "intellectual" status to make political commentary and pass it off as fact. He contradicts himself again and again to whatever stance aligns with his political allies. I'm on my phone now so I can't find the best examples but just take a look: https://twitter.com/kevinwglass/status/818465909996134400 https://twitter.com/kevinwglass/status/818465909996134400
    - leereeves 10y ago
      That's certainly one example in which he clearly drifts from economics to politics: > [Republicans are] going to blow up the deficit mainly by cutting taxes on the wealthy. ... Meanwhile, it will make the rich richer, even as cuts in social spending make the poor poorer and undermine security for the middle class. But that, of course, is the intention. [emphasis added] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/opinion/deficits-matter-again.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/opinion/deficits-matter-a... And as that tweet pointed out, he's now arguing that deficits matter (conveniently, at the same time Republicans took power), while just a few months ago, predicting Hillary would win, he argued that deficits don't matter. > The good news is that elite discourse seems, finally, to be moving in the right direction. Five years ago the Beltway crowd was fixated on debt and deficits as the great evils. Today, not so much. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/time-to-borrow.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/time-to-borrow.ht... Has the economy really changed so much in a few months - or have only the politics changed?
lobster_johnson 10y ago
On the other hand, it's not surprising that a lot of people have a feeling that everything is "rigged". Because it is; there is real conspiracy in our world, and it has always existed, but it is the invisible kind, and it exists in many forms, some less innocuous than others, some rather insidious. For example, racist bias of the kind exerted upon African-American citizens since the days of slavery is a kind of social, systemic, tacit conspiracy. There are of course plenty of kooks out there (like Alex Jones and his followers) who miss the point completely, but some of the anger and anguish coming from that direction seems genuine, even if it's misdirected at actually credible institutions like the NYT. (Not that NYT doesn't share some blame in propping up the establishment, but their elitism (which is not that egregious) is mostly a problem of monoculture, not politically reactionary ideals.) What happened with the 2008 financial crisis is that a lot of people woke up to the idea that the very fabric of a large part of the US was a kind of conspiracy of wealthy elite versus everyone else, and this feeling was confirmed when almost nobody was punished for causing the largest economic upheaval in many decades. It came at a time when a wave of globalization made it apparent to people that "the American dream" was becoming pretty unrealistic. At the same time, this apparent conspiracy is sufficiently elusive that it's hard for people to assemble in opposition to it, because who and what do you attack? Most people don't even understand how any of it works. Occupy Wall Street tried and failed because it didn't have a specific goal it could reach. It didn't surprise me that Trump was elected, because it was the one thing an ordinary person could do that could change anything (or at least feel like changing anything). For the worse, it turns out, but still.
- tmuir 10y ago
  That's certainly an interesting theory, that voting for Trump gave people the illusion of agency in bettering their lives. I've often thought of a Trump voter as akin to a Bernie Madoff investor. Madoff's investors were promised, and at least for a time, were delivered great returns. Trump supporters have been told that their good paying jobs will be restored, the government will be fixed, and a whole host of conservative ideals will be implemented, all immediately. Madoff's investors were unwilling to critically examine their investments, because that would be looking a gift horse in the mouth. Trump supporters seem willing to overlook any logistical concern with achieving Trump's plans, because the promised outcome is everything they've ever wanted, and must be preserved. In both cases, a judgement has been made that the payoff is so irresistible, that any critic can be easily dismissed as someone who doesn't want the "mark" to receive what they believe they are about to receive. In this context it is understandable why Trump supporters are so keen to accept a single correlation as causation, instead of cautiously evaluating why assertions might not be true. It is human nature to desire positive change in one's life. The more significant or positive that change, and more imminent that change appears, the less likely a person is to balance their emotional response with logical examination.

vosper 10y ago

I am constantly surprised by how many intelligent, generally rational people I meet also believe in (what I consider) absurd conspiracy theories. I've had people talk to me seriously about chemtrails, free energy devices being suppressed by oil company assassins, flouride in the water for mind control...

anigbrowl 10y ago
Conspiracy theories are sort of a hobby of mine - I've gone from feeling disappointed that they almost never turn out to be true (since they often make interesting claims) to fascination with why people believe them. Most conspiracy theories start with a false premise to which logic is then applied -often correctly. A trivial example popular among geeky music lovers is that instruments and whole compositions sound better tuned to 432Hz rather than the more common 440Hz. Much effort i devoted to showing why 432 is more numerically interesting than 440, and since 99% of music is about the juxtaposition of numerically interesting frequency rations, the arguments are superficially quite convincing, especially from an aesthetic point of view. Where it falls down is right at the beginning - not in the idea that 432 is an interesting number (it is) but in the idea that 432 cycles per second is important. People tend to forget that the second is a pretty arbitrary time division; we're just used to think about time as a fact because it is convenient in everyday life. Pro musicians and sound engineers are constantly thinking about frequencies to the quantity of a second comed to seem as real as the pull of earth's gravity to an aerospace engineer. In my experience, the longer the argument between an initial false premise and the conclusion, the more firmly the proponent will resist attacks on the theory, perhaps because it has required a higher initial investment of work to validate all the logical steps.
- jacobolus 10y ago
  432 Hz is (by definition) once every 21279240 + 5/24 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. Super aesthetically critical number right there.
  - Intermernet 10y ago
    But only at zero Kelvin. Once you punch that Caesium 133 up to room temperature you need the extra 8Hz to achieve aesthetic purity. On really hot days, you need to go to 440.1 or even 440.2.

ericdykstra 10y ago

I don't believe everything I read in any publication, especially not one that employs Paul Krugman. I also don't believe conspiracy theories that don't have hard evidence. There is plenty of criticism of mainstream media done by people who cite all their sources and have intellectually honest arguments. Don't conflate the absence of unfettered trust in the media with flat-earthers. Skepticism is healthy.

yks 10y ago
Can you give an example of Krugman lying (not failing predictions and not personal opinions)? I agree though that he writes in offensive way to conservatives.
- ericdykstra 10y ago
  He uses his "intellectual" status to make political commentary and pass it off as fact. He contradicts himself again and again to whatever stance aligns with his political allies. I'm on my phone now so I can't find the best examples but just take a look: https://twitter.com/kevinwglass/status/818465909996134400 https://twitter.com/kevinwglass/status/818465909996134400
  - leereeves 10y ago
    That's certainly one example in which he clearly drifts from economics to politics: > [Republicans are] going to blow up the deficit mainly by cutting taxes on the wealthy. ... Meanwhile, it will make the rich richer, even as cuts in social spending make the poor poorer and undermine security for the middle class. But that, of course, is the intention. [emphasis added] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/opinion/deficits-matter-again.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/opinion/deficits-matter-a... And as that tweet pointed out, he's now arguing that deficits matter (conveniently, at the same time Republicans took power), while just a few months ago, predicting Hillary would win, he argued that deficits don't matter. > The good news is that elite discourse seems, finally, to be moving in the right direction. Five years ago the Beltway crowd was fixated on debt and deficits as the great evils. Today, not so much. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/time-to-borrow.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/time-to-borrow.ht... Has the economy really changed so much in a few months - or have only the politics changed?

lobster_johnson 10y ago

On the other hand, it's not surprising that a lot of people have a feeling that everything is "rigged". Because it is; there is real conspiracy in our world, and it has always existed, but it is the invisible kind, and it exists in many forms, some less innocuous than others, some rather insidious. For example, racist bias of the kind exerted upon African-American citizens since the days of slavery is a kind of social, systemic, tacit conspiracy. There are of course plenty of kooks out there (like Alex Jones and his followers) who miss the point completely, but some of the anger and anguish coming from that direction seems genuine, even if it's misdirected at actually credible institutions like the NYT. (Not that NYT doesn't share some blame in propping up the establishment, but their elitism (which is not that egregious) is mostly a problem of monoculture, not politically reactionary ideals.) What happened with the 2008 financial crisis is that a lot of people woke up to the idea that the very fabric of a large part of the US was a kind of conspiracy of wealthy elite versus everyone else, and this feeling was confirmed when almost nobody was punished for causing the largest economic upheaval in many decades. It came at a time when a wave of globalization made it apparent to people that "the American dream" was becoming pretty unrealistic. At the same time, this apparent conspiracy is sufficiently elusive that it's hard for people to assemble in opposition to it, because who and what do you attack? Most people don't even understand how any of it works. Occupy Wall Street tried and failed because it didn't have a specific goal it could reach. It didn't surprise me that Trump was elected, because it was the one thing an ordinary person could do that could change anything (or at least feel like changing anything). For the worse, it turns out, but still.

tmuir 10y ago
That's certainly an interesting theory, that voting for Trump gave people the illusion of agency in bettering their lives. I've often thought of a Trump voter as akin to a Bernie Madoff investor. Madoff's investors were promised, and at least for a time, were delivered great returns. Trump supporters have been told that their good paying jobs will be restored, the government will be fixed, and a whole host of conservative ideals will be implemented, all immediately. Madoff's investors were unwilling to critically examine their investments, because that would be looking a gift horse in the mouth. Trump supporters seem willing to overlook any logistical concern with achieving Trump's plans, because the promised outcome is everything they've ever wanted, and must be preserved. In both cases, a judgement has been made that the payoff is so irresistible, that any critic can be easily dismissed as someone who doesn't want the "mark" to receive what they believe they are about to receive. In this context it is understandable why Trump supporters are so keen to accept a single correlation as causation, instead of cautiously evaluating why assertions might not be true. It is human nature to desire positive change in one's life. The more significant or positive that change, and more imminent that change appears, the less likely a person is to balance their emotional response with logical examination.