3 ms·

The reason people get sucked into conspiratorial thought is because the human mind is highly susceptible to believing what it is told is true, based on not grea

The reason people get sucked into conspiratorial thought is because the human mind is highly susceptible to believing what it is told is true, based on not great reasoning or evidence. We are surrounded by this phenomenon, we just don't notice because if everyone agrees on not-actually-true "truths", it is *normal, and therefore completely bypasses our intuitive filter....and if someone is to point out imperfections in popular mainstream narratives, intuitive responses like "That's different!" or "That's just a conspiracy theory!" will be typical responses. If one was to actually study this phenomenon in journalism and social media, I suspect the abstract variations of these responses would be a fairly small list, so similar is intuitive thinking between individual human beings. As long as our humanity (and science) continues to not expose the varieties of extremely important patterns of behavior in the human mind, these exploits will remain unseen, and can be used for good or evil. If we want conspiracy theories to go away for good, expose what makes them possible, and in turn give up the magical power authorities have over the public. Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too.

woodruffw 5y ago
This is a really oblique response. Could you be more explicit about what "not-actually-true "truths"" you're referring to? As for conspiracy theories as a whole: I'm not necessarily sure I want them to go away. Conspiracies are sometimes real, so it stands to reason that societies should tolerate some amount of conspiracy theorizing. I think the larger risk is the blurring of conspiracy theory and conspiracy culture, the latter being closer to the cult dynamics that we see with groups like QAnon.
- mistermann 5y ago
  > This is a really oblique response. Could you be more explicit about what "not-actually-true "truths"" you're referring to? It's not always so cut and dried as ~"false truths", but more like normalcy/convention/cultural-norms are unquestioned. Look how we conduct journalism, in largely narrative form with a few cherry picked stats here and there. What the media decides and broadcasts is reality is what "mainstream" consumers believe/perceive reality is composed of. Sure, freedom of speech allows differing opinions to be broadcast, to some degree (and with limitations), but we have decades of experience in seeing that the Right beliefs are what prevail, attaching a "conspiracy theory" sticker is just one of the latest. Take "democracy", our most sacred institution - there are an infinite number of variations of democracy, but how many people think of it any more complexly than a binary? Yes, vigorous debate is allowed and even encouraged about mild tweaks, but how often does one encounter discussion of fundamental changes to how we practice democracy? Take our financial system - I think we're all aware of some of the interesting decisions that are made in this area on a regular basis. Consider covid and the "moral obligation" people have to get vaccinated and put up with any financial hardship resulting from lockdowns. I'm not opposing this on its own, but why is saving the lives of primarily boomers who've lived long, relatively lovely lives a moral imperative, spare no expense, and anyone who doesn't fall in line is considered selfish if not evil....but when it comes to children around the world dying of malnutrition, or people at home dying from drug issues, why is there zero moral imperative? "That's different"? Indeed it is, but I would very much like to see it stated explicitly and precisely why one "is" a moral imperative that demands setting aside all other concerns, and the others do not. If it is actually about saving lives, shouldn't we be concerned about all lives? Take how we live in general: how we educate our children and the public ((or don't as is often the case - see: financial literacy, critical thinking, etc), how we choose to design our cities, you name it. All of this is just "how it is", rarely do we seriously question the optimality of the fundamental ways we run things. But when something goes wrong, oh boy are we quick to point a finger at this or that policy/person, typically with zero regard whatsoever for the comprehensive causality that preceded the event. I propose that it is the psychological phenomenon/exploit described in this parable that enables this comedy of errors to continue on generation after generation, and I do not think I am the only person who is well aware of it: There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”
- ben_w 5y ago
  I believe political, theological, and moral divisions must always have a significant number of people believing untrue things, otherwise they wouldn’t be divisions, they’d be considered “common sense”. Theologically, Atheists and Zoroastrians can’t both be right (to pick a hopefully non-contentious pair); with Brexit, the obvious conjugate pair is Leavers vs. Remainers; with morality I have too many to choose between, but the obvious pair to reference without people assuming (even here) that I take the side of the Evil Ones[0] is abortion, pro-choice vs. pro-life. There are, I think, also cases where the supermajority of humans believe falsely; I think the identified cases of this are all called “cognitive biases” or sometimes “paradoxes”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases [0] at least, I’ve never seen that response here for that topic, but I have seen bad takes for other dichotomies

woodruffw 5y ago

This is a really oblique response. Could you be more explicit about what "not-actually-true "truths"" you're referring to? As for conspiracy theories as a whole: I'm not necessarily sure I want them to go away. Conspiracies are sometimes real, so it stands to reason that societies should tolerate some amount of conspiracy theorizing. I think the larger risk is the blurring of conspiracy theory and conspiracy culture, the latter being closer to the cult dynamics that we see with groups like QAnon.

mistermann 5y ago
> This is a really oblique response. Could you be more explicit about what "not-actually-true "truths"" you're referring to? It's not always so cut and dried as ~"false truths", but more like normalcy/convention/cultural-norms are unquestioned. Look how we conduct journalism, in largely narrative form with a few cherry picked stats here and there. What the media decides and broadcasts is reality is what "mainstream" consumers believe/perceive reality is composed of. Sure, freedom of speech allows differing opinions to be broadcast, to some degree (and with limitations), but we have decades of experience in seeing that the Right beliefs are what prevail, attaching a "conspiracy theory" sticker is just one of the latest. Take "democracy", our most sacred institution - there are an infinite number of variations of democracy, but how many people think of it any more complexly than a binary? Yes, vigorous debate is allowed and even encouraged about mild tweaks, but how often does one encounter discussion of fundamental changes to how we practice democracy? Take our financial system - I think we're all aware of some of the interesting decisions that are made in this area on a regular basis. Consider covid and the "moral obligation" people have to get vaccinated and put up with any financial hardship resulting from lockdowns. I'm not opposing this on its own, but why is saving the lives of primarily boomers who've lived long, relatively lovely lives a moral imperative, spare no expense, and anyone who doesn't fall in line is considered selfish if not evil....but when it comes to children around the world dying of malnutrition, or people at home dying from drug issues, why is there zero moral imperative? "That's different"? Indeed it is, but I would very much like to see it stated explicitly and precisely why one "is" a moral imperative that demands setting aside all other concerns, and the others do not. If it is actually about saving lives, shouldn't we be concerned about all lives? Take how we live in general: how we educate our children and the public ((or don't as is often the case - see: financial literacy, critical thinking, etc), how we choose to design our cities, you name it. All of this is just "how it is", rarely do we seriously question the optimality of the fundamental ways we run things. But when something goes wrong, oh boy are we quick to point a finger at this or that policy/person, typically with zero regard whatsoever for the comprehensive causality that preceded the event. I propose that it is the psychological phenomenon/exploit described in this parable that enables this comedy of errors to continue on generation after generation, and I do not think I am the only person who is well aware of it: There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”
ben_w 5y ago
I believe political, theological, and moral divisions must always have a significant number of people believing untrue things, otherwise they wouldn’t be divisions, they’d be considered “common sense”. Theologically, Atheists and Zoroastrians can’t both be right (to pick a hopefully non-contentious pair); with Brexit, the obvious conjugate pair is Leavers vs. Remainers; with morality I have too many to choose between, but the obvious pair to reference without people assuming (even here) that I take the side of the Evil Ones[0] is abortion, pro-choice vs. pro-life. There are, I think, also cases where the supermajority of humans believe falsely; I think the identified cases of this are all called “cognitive biases” or sometimes “paradoxes”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases [0] at least, I’ve never seen that response here for that topic, but I have seen bad takes for other dichotomies