4 ms·

That's a lot of words that could be replaced with "I don't understand the phrase 'contrary to all evidence.'" Although I suspect you know that, the rules aroun

That's a lot of words that could be replaced with "I don't understand the phrase 'contrary to all evidence.'" Although I suspect you know that, the rules around here say I should assume the most gracious possible explanation, so: My long sentence did not in fact suggest any coordinated behavior at all, nor is there any known evidence to suggest any part of the sentence is wrong. That's the difference between something being proven false, like racist birtherism, and a lack of evidence to support your misreading of my assertion. Do I need to provide links for "shots fired in a pizza parlor" or "protesters murdered by car" or "protestors murdered by gun" or "illegal voter intimidation" or "not quite ruling out the possibility that a huge chunk of elected officials and others are part of a cabal of devil-worshipping pederasts who drink the blood of children," really? You go on a bit suggesting that the only reason any of the above might possibly be considered bad is that it's labeled a certain way, but I think you've got that very, very backward. All of the above are considered bad, and it turns out that all of them seem to be linked to a somewhat popular and growing source which happens to fall into a category popularly known as a conspiracy theory. Call it that, or call it harmful garbage, I don't care. This sentence is the one that would give away your game, by the way: > If truth and rationality is truly on the side of the "anti-conspiracy" side of the divide, you'd think it would be child's play to "destroy conspiracy theorists with facts and logic". And yet, what accompanies the heuristic seems to be an inoculation to any epistemic challenges: circling of the wagons, typically via insubstantial/rhetorical dismissals (ad hominen character attacks), appeals to ends justifying the means, or simply downvoting + silence. That's a doozy, and wrong both in fact and in what I think is its clear intent.

mistermann 6y ago
> That's a lot of words that could be replaced with "I don't understand the phrase 'contrary to all evidence.'" This statement is objectively incorrect. The "lot of words" contained within my comment cannot, in fact, be replaced with "I don't understand the phrase 'contrary to all evidence.'" This is the sort of response that interests me, especially on a high-intellect site like HN. > My long sentence did not in fact suggest any coordinated behavior at all This statement is objectively incorrect. You wrote: "...combined with some [ [conspiracy theories] popular among ["the Tea Party movement"] ] as they were known, [propelled our current president into office]. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy - the act of conspiring. - an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. - a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. Law. - an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. - any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. . > nor is there any known evidence to suggest any part of the sentence is wrong This sounds like you believe that you can assert anything, and the onus is on others to disprove it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) > That's the difference between something being proven false, like racist birtherism, and a lack of evidence to support your misreading of my assertion. I don't think it's actually true that I've misread or mischaracterized your assertion. I have provided some information above upon which my reasoning is based. More likely, I suspect your objection is that I have interpreted it literally, as opposed to "knowing what you mean" - the issue with the latter approach is, it has a dependency on the manner in which each individual reader unpacks the text you have written into complex ideas in their mind. The advantage of speaking explicitly/precisely/literally is that it is far more immune to errors during transmission. Of course, this can also e a disadvantage, such as when endeavouring to persuade people to believe certain ideas, that are not actually (known to be) True (which is why I suspect my style of writing is so unpopular - it interferes with that process). > Do I need to provide links for "shots fired in a pizza parlor" or "protesters murdered by car" or "protestors murdered by gun" or "illegal voter intimidation" or "not quite ruling out the possibility that a huge chunk of elected officials and others are part of a cabal of devil-worshipping pederasts who drink the blood of children," really? No, but it would be preferable if you speak in more precise terms (less vagueness, less rhetoric), or at least acknowledge the form in which you are speaking. But of course, you are free to do whatever you would like. > You go on a bit suggesting that the only reason any of the above might possibly be considered bad is that it's labeled a certain way Not quite. I did point out that this labelling is bad, but I also pointed out some specifics of why it is bad. And, I did not suggest that this is "the only thing that is bad" - that is your interpretation of what I've said, an interpretation that is distinctly different than what I actually said. It is this phenomenon (and the increasing frequency of it, on certain important topics) that bothers me. > but I think you've got that very, very backward. All of the above are considered bad, and it turns out that all of them seem to be.... When you say "they seem to be X linked to..." - what information is your perception of this linkage based on? Did you roll up your sleeve and do the associative backtracing yourself, or did you outsource that to a third party, and accepts the resulting assessment at face value, with no concern for its relative, quantitative accuracy? > ...linked to a somewhat popular and growing source which happens to fall into a category popularly known as a conspiracy theory. Call it that, or call it harmful garbage, I don't care. Some of us care. Firstly, I care about what is actually true. Secondly, I care that so many people exhibit signs of not caring about what is true, while simultaneously accusing other people of doing that very thing - and seem to be completely unaware that this phenomenon is occurring. Based on my (admittedly imperfect) understanding of history, the long term consequences of this sort of mindset is often unpleasant. > This sentence is the one that would give away your game, by the way That you consider truth to be some sort of a game is similarly concerning. > That's a doozy, and wrong both in fact and in what I think is its clear intent. Are you able to point out what is factually wrong with it (and if so, could you please state explicitly what that is)? I am also very curious to know what you think my intent is, as well as how that belief formed in your mind, but that's purely optional. Lest you allow your intuition that I am "up to something", or "trying to gaslight you" dissuade you from addressing the points that I have actually made (as opposed to addressing inaccurate, non-comprehensive interpretations of them), I would like to preemptively point out that the thinking style I am using here is no different than that which most of us use all day long when we are writing code: disciplined, fact-based (consistent with observable reality) logic. If we write unsound code based on incorrect premises, will our programs not produce incorrect (inconsistent with reality) results, and do we not exert significant effort to ensure that we avoid that? Well then, if that is appropriate for matters in the workplace that affect only small slices of the world population, is there some logical reason that this style of thinking becomes inappropriate when dealing with arguably more important matters: events in the real world, many of which have complex cascading effects on very large slices of the world population?
- tptacek 6y ago
  Two things. First, you know you're on extremely weak rhetorical ice, and also kind of outside the norms of our community, when you start quoting the dictionary as a rebuttal. The person you're debating told you what they meant; what they meant is no longer a part of the debate. Second, it is very much out of the norms of HN to do email-style alternating quote/response the way you are. It's also very difficult to read on this site. Try just writing paragraphs? We can all read the comment you're replying to; we don't need to read it twice.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > First, you know you're on extremely weak rhetorical ice a) You do not know what I know b) I would say that I am not on "rhetorical ice" at all - rather, I am combating rhetoric with precise, non-rhetorical ideas > and also kind of outside the norms of our community This is my very complaint. It may be true that I am "outside of the norms (Overton Window) of the community", but have I violated the HN guidelines? Is strict epistemology (disciplined adherence to that which is actually true) a formal violation of explicit community rules, or an undocumented, culturally imposed one? > when you start quoting the dictionary as a rebuttal. Adherence to formal, broadly accepted definitions of words (upon which someone else's argument is based) is improper behavior? > The person you're debating told you what they meant; what they meant is no longer a part of the debate. How does one know what portions of reality are acceptable to discuss, and which ones shall not be discussed? I see nothing in the guidelines. And I would strongly disagree to objections based on "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." It is a fine guideline, but when it starts being used as a wildcard to suppress true ideas, the discussion of which may not to be some people's liking, I think that crosses an important line. > Second, it is very much out of the norms of HN to do email-style alternating quote/response the way you are. It's also very difficult to read on this site. Certain forms of communication (precise, non-narrative) lend themselves to different writing styles. Do you have any objections that are based on the actual content of the ideas I have written? Or might your objection be not to the ideas themselves, but that I am stating them out loud? Does it matter to anyone what is actually True any longer, or have we mass adopted a culture of "the ends justifies the means" to managing and discussing the affairs of the world? Should bad ideas be fought with better ideas, or with censorship (formal, or informal) and pretending they do not exist? Based on how I see events unfolding in the world, now seems like an opportune time to be discussing just what exactly we humans are actually up to on this planet (as opposed to what we like to tell ourselves we are up to), from a more philosophical/abstract perspective - this facilitates the ability to rise above the repetitive loop of object-level "he said, she said" conversations, and ascend to a level of more thoughtful, less combative/partisan communication and sense making - at least in theory. Are we formally opposed to that level of conversation, is that "outside the norms of our community" - or not? This is not my decision to make, I am only asking the question.
pwinnski 6y ago
Any observers still unclear on what the walls of text might be designed to do should note that anyone not in favor of letting Qanon run amok is required to produce incontrovertible evidence of every single assertion they make, held to an impossible standard if anyone is being dishonest, while on the other side, statements like 'it's mostly "the left" doing the censorship these days' can be dropped without any supporting evidence at all. For all the appeals to objectivity, the sea-lioning[0] is very much one-sided. 0 http://www.wondermark.com/1k62/ http://www.wondermark.com/1k62/
- mistermann 6y ago
  > Any observers still unclear on what the walls of text might be designed to do... Knowing(!) what the walls of text are "designed to do" requires ESP abilities (are you suggesting these exist, and you possess them?), and is also inconsistent with what they are actually designed to do (I know, because unlike you, I happen to have direct access to my mind) - a more accurate motivation was arrived at (and confirmed by me) by one exceptionally skilled thinker if you care to read the thread. > ...should note that anyone not in favor of letting Qanon run amok is required to produce incontrovertible evidence of every single assertion they make, held to an impossible standard if anyone is being dishonest Observers should "note" this "fact"? Well, it's your claim, not mine. Not only have I not claimed this, I do not believe or agree with it - I consider this idea incredibly unrealistic, to the point of categorizing it under silly. > ...while on the other side, statements like 'it's mostly "the left" doing the censorship these days' can be dropped without any supporting evidence at all. "While on the other side" sounds like you're referring to me. Have I made any such claim about the left? Why are you speaking as if I have? Is that an honest mistake, or are you perhaps using deceit to implant invalid invalid ideas into the minds of other readers? This is actually the essence of my very complaint: the implanting of ideas that are not supported by evidence into vulnerable minds of other people - which ironically, is the very thing QAnon and conspiracy theorists do! > For all the appeals to objectivity, the sea-lioning[0] is very much one-sided. I find it very interesting (and ironic/hypocritical - see my other comment in the thread on this) that the collective brainpower of HN is not able to come up with a single argument that does not consist of rhetoric like this (individual sentence, and overall comment). I also find it interesting that when I point this out, it is only responded to with more rhetoric. > http://www.wondermark.com/1k62/ http://www.wondermark.com/1k62/ I notice the author has posted some interesting followup errata comments on that comic: http://wondermark.com/2014-errata/ http://wondermark.com/2014-errata/ > It has been suggested that the couple in this comic, and the woman in particular, are bigots for making a pejorative statement about a species of animal, and then refusing to justify their statements. It has been further suggested that they be read as overly privileged, because they are dressed fancily, have a house, a motor-car, etc. This is, I suppose, a valid read of the comic, if taken as written. > But often, in satire such as this, elements are employed to stand in for other, different objects or concepts. Using animals for this purpose has the effect of allowing the point (which usually is about behavior) to stand unencumbered by the connotations that might be suggested if a person is portrayed in that role — because all people are members of some social group or other, even if said group identity is not germane to the point being made. > Such is the case with this comic. The sea lion character is not meant to represent actual sea lions, or any actual animal. It is meant as a metaphorical stand-in for human beings that display certain behaviors. Since behaviors are the result of choice, I would assert that the woman’s objection to sea lions — which, if the metaphor is understood, is read as actually an objection to human beings who exhibit certain behaviors — is not analogous to a prejudice based on race, species, or other immutable characteristics. > My apologies if the use of a metaphorical sea lion in this strip, rather than a human being making conscious choices about their own behavior, was in any way confusing. As you can see, the point of the comic is about behaviors: "Since behaviors are the result of choice, I would assert that the woman’s objection to sea lions — which, if the metaphor is understood, is read as actually an objection to human beings who exhibit certain behaviors". So in the context of this thread, the behavior that can be observed is people choosing to broadcast specific ideas [1] for which they do not have evidence, and are unwilling to defend with anything other than rhetoric. An overly imaginative person might also pick up a whiffs of things like intellectual superiority (the ironic kind), groupthink, peer pressure, tyranny of the majority, chilling effect, Overton Window enforcement, etc. Luckily, I am not such a person, I am simply making that observation. Although, I do take exception with: "Since behaviors are the result of choice...". If one studies psychology and neuroscience, it becomes not so clear how much choice or free will people have when it comes to what they believe. At times, some beliefs seem to be (so they say) intertwined with the very identity of the person who holds them, and consequently, these beliefs can be very stubbornly held (within the subconscious mind) and if not formed via a logical process, cannot be dispelled with logic (and are often not defended by logic,or cannot be). Probably the most famous example of this type of belief is religion, which can come in many forms. [1] ...which can affect belief formation in other people's minds, which can then infect other minds, rinse/repeat - this "virality of ideas" phenomenon can be more easily recognized by observing QAnon type subcultures rather than subtler instances like this thread. https://www.google.com/search?q=case+study+propagation+of+memes https://www.google.com/search?q=case+study+propagation+of+me...

mistermann 6y ago

> That's a lot of words that could be replaced with "I don't understand the phrase 'contrary to all evidence.'" This statement is objectively incorrect. The "lot of words" contained within my comment cannot, in fact, be replaced with "I don't understand the phrase 'contrary to all evidence.'" This is the sort of response that interests me, especially on a high-intellect site like HN. > My long sentence did not in fact suggest any coordinated behavior at all This statement is objectively incorrect. You wrote: "...combined with some [ [conspiracy theories] popular among ["the Tea Party movement"] ] as they were known, [propelled our current president into office]. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy - the act of conspiring. - an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. - a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. Law. - an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. - any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. . > nor is there any known evidence to suggest any part of the sentence is wrong This sounds like you believe that you can assert anything, and the onus is on others to disprove it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) > That's the difference between something being proven false, like racist birtherism, and a lack of evidence to support your misreading of my assertion. I don't think it's actually true that I've misread or mischaracterized your assertion. I have provided some information above upon which my reasoning is based. More likely, I suspect your objection is that I have interpreted it literally, as opposed to "knowing what you mean" - the issue with the latter approach is, it has a dependency on the manner in which each individual reader unpacks the text you have written into complex ideas in their mind. The advantage of speaking explicitly/precisely/literally is that it is far more immune to errors during transmission. Of course, this can also e a disadvantage, such as when endeavouring to persuade people to believe certain ideas, that are not actually (known to be) True (which is why I suspect my style of writing is so unpopular - it interferes with that process). > Do I need to provide links for "shots fired in a pizza parlor" or "protesters murdered by car" or "protestors murdered by gun" or "illegal voter intimidation" or "not quite ruling out the possibility that a huge chunk of elected officials and others are part of a cabal of devil-worshipping pederasts who drink the blood of children," really? No, but it would be preferable if you speak in more precise terms (less vagueness, less rhetoric), or at least acknowledge the form in which you are speaking. But of course, you are free to do whatever you would like. > You go on a bit suggesting that the only reason any of the above might possibly be considered bad is that it's labeled a certain way Not quite. I did point out that this labelling is bad, but I also pointed out some specifics of why it is bad. And, I did not suggest that this is "the only thing that is bad" - that is your interpretation of what I've said, an interpretation that is distinctly different than what I actually said. It is this phenomenon (and the increasing frequency of it, on certain important topics) that bothers me. > but I think you've got that very, very backward. All of the above are considered bad, and it turns out that all of them seem to be.... When you say "they seem to be X linked to..." - what information is your perception of this linkage based on? Did you roll up your sleeve and do the associative backtracing yourself, or did you outsource that to a third party, and accepts the resulting assessment at face value, with no concern for its relative, quantitative accuracy? > ...linked to a somewhat popular and growing source which happens to fall into a category popularly known as a conspiracy theory. Call it that, or call it harmful garbage, I don't care. Some of us care. Firstly, I care about what is actually true. Secondly, I care that so many people exhibit signs of not caring about what is true, while simultaneously accusing other people of doing that very thing - and seem to be completely unaware that this phenomenon is occurring. Based on my (admittedly imperfect) understanding of history, the long term consequences of this sort of mindset is often unpleasant. > This sentence is the one that would give away your game, by the way That you consider truth to be some sort of a game is similarly concerning. > That's a doozy, and wrong both in fact and in what I think is its clear intent. Are you able to point out what is factually wrong with it (and if so, could you please state explicitly what that is)? I am also very curious to know what you think my intent is, as well as how that belief formed in your mind, but that's purely optional. Lest you allow your intuition that I am "up to something", or "trying to gaslight you" dissuade you from addressing the points that I have actually made (as opposed to addressing inaccurate, non-comprehensive interpretations of them), I would like to preemptively point out that the thinking style I am using here is no different than that which most of us use all day long when we are writing code: disciplined, fact-based (consistent with observable reality) logic. If we write unsound code based on incorrect premises, will our programs not produce incorrect (inconsistent with reality) results, and do we not exert significant effort to ensure that we avoid that? Well then, if that is appropriate for matters in the workplace that affect only small slices of the world population, is there some logical reason that this style of thinking becomes inappropriate when dealing with arguably more important matters: events in the real world, many of which have complex cascading effects on very large slices of the world population?

tptacek 6y ago
Two things. First, you know you're on extremely weak rhetorical ice, and also kind of outside the norms of our community, when you start quoting the dictionary as a rebuttal. The person you're debating told you what they meant; what they meant is no longer a part of the debate. Second, it is very much out of the norms of HN to do email-style alternating quote/response the way you are. It's also very difficult to read on this site. Try just writing paragraphs? We can all read the comment you're replying to; we don't need to read it twice.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > First, you know you're on extremely weak rhetorical ice a) You do not know what I know b) I would say that I am not on "rhetorical ice" at all - rather, I am combating rhetoric with precise, non-rhetorical ideas > and also kind of outside the norms of our community This is my very complaint. It may be true that I am "outside of the norms (Overton Window) of the community", but have I violated the HN guidelines? Is strict epistemology (disciplined adherence to that which is actually true) a formal violation of explicit community rules, or an undocumented, culturally imposed one? > when you start quoting the dictionary as a rebuttal. Adherence to formal, broadly accepted definitions of words (upon which someone else's argument is based) is improper behavior? > The person you're debating told you what they meant; what they meant is no longer a part of the debate. How does one know what portions of reality are acceptable to discuss, and which ones shall not be discussed? I see nothing in the guidelines. And I would strongly disagree to objections based on "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." It is a fine guideline, but when it starts being used as a wildcard to suppress true ideas, the discussion of which may not to be some people's liking, I think that crosses an important line. > Second, it is very much out of the norms of HN to do email-style alternating quote/response the way you are. It's also very difficult to read on this site. Certain forms of communication (precise, non-narrative) lend themselves to different writing styles. Do you have any objections that are based on the actual content of the ideas I have written? Or might your objection be not to the ideas themselves, but that I am stating them out loud? Does it matter to anyone what is actually True any longer, or have we mass adopted a culture of "the ends justifies the means" to managing and discussing the affairs of the world? Should bad ideas be fought with better ideas, or with censorship (formal, or informal) and pretending they do not exist? Based on how I see events unfolding in the world, now seems like an opportune time to be discussing just what exactly we humans are actually up to on this planet (as opposed to what we like to tell ourselves we are up to), from a more philosophical/abstract perspective - this facilitates the ability to rise above the repetitive loop of object-level "he said, she said" conversations, and ascend to a level of more thoughtful, less combative/partisan communication and sense making - at least in theory. Are we formally opposed to that level of conversation, is that "outside the norms of our community" - or not? This is not my decision to make, I am only asking the question.

pwinnski 6y ago

Any observers still unclear on what the walls of text might be designed to do should note that anyone not in favor of letting Qanon run amok is required to produce incontrovertible evidence of every single assertion they make, held to an impossible standard if anyone is being dishonest, while on the other side, statements like 'it's mostly "the left" doing the censorship these days' can be dropped without any supporting evidence at all. For all the appeals to objectivity, the sea-lioning[0] is very much one-sided. 0 http://www.wondermark.com/1k62/ http://www.wondermark.com/1k62/

mistermann 6y ago
> Any observers still unclear on what the walls of text might be designed to do... Knowing(!) what the walls of text are "designed to do" requires ESP abilities (are you suggesting these exist, and you possess them?), and is also inconsistent with what they are actually designed to do (I know, because unlike you, I happen to have direct access to my mind) - a more accurate motivation was arrived at (and confirmed by me) by one exceptionally skilled thinker if you care to read the thread. > ...should note that anyone not in favor of letting Qanon run amok is required to produce incontrovertible evidence of every single assertion they make, held to an impossible standard if anyone is being dishonest Observers should "note" this "fact"? Well, it's your claim, not mine. Not only have I not claimed this, I do not believe or agree with it - I consider this idea incredibly unrealistic, to the point of categorizing it under silly. > ...while on the other side, statements like 'it's mostly "the left" doing the censorship these days' can be dropped without any supporting evidence at all. "While on the other side" sounds like you're referring to me. Have I made any such claim about the left? Why are you speaking as if I have? Is that an honest mistake, or are you perhaps using deceit to implant invalid invalid ideas into the minds of other readers? This is actually the essence of my very complaint: the implanting of ideas that are not supported by evidence into vulnerable minds of other people - which ironically, is the very thing QAnon and conspiracy theorists do! > For all the appeals to objectivity, the sea-lioning[0] is very much one-sided. I find it very interesting (and ironic/hypocritical - see my other comment in the thread on this) that the collective brainpower of HN is not able to come up with a single argument that does not consist of rhetoric like this (individual sentence, and overall comment). I also find it interesting that when I point this out, it is only responded to with more rhetoric. > http://www.wondermark.com/1k62/ http://www.wondermark.com/1k62/ I notice the author has posted some interesting followup errata comments on that comic: http://wondermark.com/2014-errata/ http://wondermark.com/2014-errata/ > It has been suggested that the couple in this comic, and the woman in particular, are bigots for making a pejorative statement about a species of animal, and then refusing to justify their statements. It has been further suggested that they be read as overly privileged, because they are dressed fancily, have a house, a motor-car, etc. This is, I suppose, a valid read of the comic, if taken as written. > But often, in satire such as this, elements are employed to stand in for other, different objects or concepts. Using animals for this purpose has the effect of allowing the point (which usually is about behavior) to stand unencumbered by the connotations that might be suggested if a person is portrayed in that role — because all people are members of some social group or other, even if said group identity is not germane to the point being made. > Such is the case with this comic. The sea lion character is not meant to represent actual sea lions, or any actual animal. It is meant as a metaphorical stand-in for human beings that display certain behaviors. Since behaviors are the result of choice, I would assert that the woman’s objection to sea lions — which, if the metaphor is understood, is read as actually an objection to human beings who exhibit certain behaviors — is not analogous to a prejudice based on race, species, or other immutable characteristics. > My apologies if the use of a metaphorical sea lion in this strip, rather than a human being making conscious choices about their own behavior, was in any way confusing. As you can see, the point of the comic is about behaviors: "Since behaviors are the result of choice, I would assert that the woman’s objection to sea lions — which, if the metaphor is understood, is read as actually an objection to human beings who exhibit certain behaviors". So in the context of this thread, the behavior that can be observed is people choosing to broadcast specific ideas [1] for which they do not have evidence, and are unwilling to defend with anything other than rhetoric. An overly imaginative person might also pick up a whiffs of things like intellectual superiority (the ironic kind), groupthink, peer pressure, tyranny of the majority, chilling effect, Overton Window enforcement, etc. Luckily, I am not such a person, I am simply making that observation. Although, I do take exception with: "Since behaviors are the result of choice...". If one studies psychology and neuroscience, it becomes not so clear how much choice or free will people have when it comes to what they believe. At times, some beliefs seem to be (so they say) intertwined with the very identity of the person who holds them, and consequently, these beliefs can be very stubbornly held (within the subconscious mind) and if not formed via a logical process, cannot be dispelled with logic (and are often not defended by logic,or cannot be). Probably the most famous example of this type of belief is religion, which can come in many forms. [1] ...which can affect belief formation in other people's minds, which can then infect other minds, rinse/repeat - this "virality of ideas" phenomenon can be more easily recognized by observing QAnon type subcultures rather than subtler instances like this thread. https://www.google.com/search?q=case+study+propagation+of+memes https://www.google.com/search?q=case+study+propagation+of+me...