3 ms·

The truth values of the narrative in question doesn't actually change the point the article makes, though I suspect this is because they're accidentally right r

The truth values of the narrative in question doesn't actually change the point the article makes, though I suspect this is because they're accidentally right rather than they went out of their way to make allowances for the fact that many conspiracy theories turn out to be true. Believing that the greater social structure of your society is controlled by conspiring entities who tend to work in their mutual self interest and to support the status quo will almost necessarily be seen negatively by those who merely support the status quo, which is basically everybody. So yes, there are negative social cohesion consequences for being aware of that, just as there are negative social cohesion consequences of being aware the religious structure of theocracy is also the same kind of thing, or any other broadly accepted popular fiction, your government exists to serve you, your priest is a conduit to god, whatever. Most humans just don't care and aren't capable of parsing the truth value of the questions raised, they're just interested in their status within those structures rather than the nature of them. They'll trade n percent of the total time in their lives for n million kudos bucks without spending a ten thousandth thereof pondering the nature of how kudos bucks enter into circulation or exit therefrom, nor who has their hands on the scales, and in what manner. If you are not one of them though and you genuinely find the pursuit of truth and investigation into the actual state of reality behind the socially constructed fiction, then once again almost necessarily you're going to be the kind of person who finds meaning and a sense of purpose in that pursuit, if it's true, all the better because you will have fewer doubts about that sense of purpose and mission.

nineplay 4y ago
> Most humans just don't care and aren't capable of parsing the truth value of the questions raised, they're just interested in their status within those structures rather than the nature of them. Good job, you've successfully identified the core belief of almost every conspiracy theorist. A big part of the reason conspiracy theories are so appealing is that it gives the theorist has the happy thought that they and they alone see the truth while everyone else is not 'capable of parsing the truth'.
- etherael 4y ago
  Anybody who rejects the hypothesis that some tribal group to which they belong is how the truth is discovered and defined, and accepts the reality that it must be investigated without reference to the narratives and worldviews of said tribal groups including their own, is capable of parsing the truth. They might not arrive at the right result, but they're at least capable. If a person can't do that though, then they're not even trying to parse the truth, they're just engaging in tribal in-group signalling with their peers, which as far as I can see is the vast majority of what humans do to the exclusion of all else. The supermajority of humanity waving red or blue flags and shouting their slogans hasn't sat down and actually analysed any of the underlying issues, that's not what their displays are about. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's always the way its seemed to me, I've never witnessed that tribal in-group signaling being subject to any kind of critical analysis whatsoever, and any attempt to engage in such isn't seen as an attempt to find out what's true, but an attack on their tribe. This isn't even limited to the more popular tribal in-groups. I am certain that you could find an Alex Jones infowars type who, if you sat down and earnestly attempted to engage in a dialogue with them about some belief they held that you could prove outright empirically was false, they would not view that dialogue as a mechanism for finding the truth, but once again, an attack on their tribe. This just seems to be the way the vast majority of humans work, and it kind of makes sense in a context of collectives engaged in constant struggle against each other for dominance in brutal and messy ways. Nuanced views are a luxury few can afford, and a neat way to end up outcast and subject to the depredations of any of the aforementioned dominant aggressive collectives. Before you know it, they're forcing you to drink Hemlock.
lettergram 4y ago
> Believing that the greater social structure of your society is controlled by conspiring entities who tend to work in their mutual self interest and to support the status quo will almost necessarily be seen negatively by those who merely support the status quo, which is basically everybody. Lol… the founding documents of the United States are pretty explicit about not trusting government. Something like 80% of people don’t trust news media today. I wouldn’t say everyone supports the status quo. In fact I think the vast majority of people don’t like the status quo. The discussion is always how to make it better. All that said, “conspiracies” are real and everywhere. I have multiple active conspiracies with my friends to go on a trip this fall, wife doesn’t know yet. Lol My point was actually that conspiracies are all around us. Being apart of them is common. That makes us apart of something and makes us happy. Social cohesion wasn’t exactly what I was discussing, but I don’t think cohesion is actually necessary - so long as everyone tolerates one another. That said I do see your point. The search for truth is definitely key. But truth isn’t much different than faith. Imo believing truth is a willingness to accept constantly being wrong. You much always change your opinions.
- etherael 4y ago
  > Lol… the founding documents of the United States are pretty explicit about not trusting government. Something like 80% of people don’t trust news media today. Sure, but that's not what I mean by the status quo. Almost all humans support the status quo as defined by what they believe their tribal ingroup supports, they believe that those other people who are aligned with themselves are the only ones privy to "the real story" and the people in the other tribe are evil and/or stupid. They both support the status quo as "why can't everyone just be reasonable like me and my people", and "the government" or "the media" as expeditionary forces against them are viewed as enemies to their status quo. By contrast, it is extremely rare you will find people who acknowledge the bounds of their certainty about what's actually going on, that they aren't so sure that what they think about how things should be done is the right way to go, that they're willing to subject their prescriptions to empirical analysis, that they think maybe there are things they don't know and indeed things nobody knows that significantly impact all of the above factors, and if on reflection and analysis the status quo can be shown to be deficient in a concrete way, they accept that it should be overhauled. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there's enough of these people in the world that they actually could be a tribe, and when I see them musing to themselves in the obscure fringes in which they operate, they frequently make reference to the fact that they often feel like clowns that don't fit anywhere at all. It's true these people do tend to view government and media with suspicion, but the difference between them and their tribal counterparts is that they've always viewed government and media that way, and government and media have in turn always been opposed to them, as the glue that holds together the tribal factions that otherwise tend to dominate society and whose favor those entities are constantly trying to curry, frequently by casting aspersions on those outsiders.

nineplay 4y ago

> Most humans just don't care and aren't capable of parsing the truth value of the questions raised, they're just interested in their status within those structures rather than the nature of them. Good job, you've successfully identified the core belief of almost every conspiracy theorist. A big part of the reason conspiracy theories are so appealing is that it gives the theorist has the happy thought that they and they alone see the truth while everyone else is not 'capable of parsing the truth'.

etherael 4y ago
Anybody who rejects the hypothesis that some tribal group to which they belong is how the truth is discovered and defined, and accepts the reality that it must be investigated without reference to the narratives and worldviews of said tribal groups including their own, is capable of parsing the truth. They might not arrive at the right result, but they're at least capable. If a person can't do that though, then they're not even trying to parse the truth, they're just engaging in tribal in-group signalling with their peers, which as far as I can see is the vast majority of what humans do to the exclusion of all else. The supermajority of humanity waving red or blue flags and shouting their slogans hasn't sat down and actually analysed any of the underlying issues, that's not what their displays are about. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's always the way its seemed to me, I've never witnessed that tribal in-group signaling being subject to any kind of critical analysis whatsoever, and any attempt to engage in such isn't seen as an attempt to find out what's true, but an attack on their tribe. This isn't even limited to the more popular tribal in-groups. I am certain that you could find an Alex Jones infowars type who, if you sat down and earnestly attempted to engage in a dialogue with them about some belief they held that you could prove outright empirically was false, they would not view that dialogue as a mechanism for finding the truth, but once again, an attack on their tribe. This just seems to be the way the vast majority of humans work, and it kind of makes sense in a context of collectives engaged in constant struggle against each other for dominance in brutal and messy ways. Nuanced views are a luxury few can afford, and a neat way to end up outcast and subject to the depredations of any of the aforementioned dominant aggressive collectives. Before you know it, they're forcing you to drink Hemlock.

lettergram 4y ago

> Believing that the greater social structure of your society is controlled by conspiring entities who tend to work in their mutual self interest and to support the status quo will almost necessarily be seen negatively by those who merely support the status quo, which is basically everybody. Lol… the founding documents of the United States are pretty explicit about not trusting government. Something like 80% of people don’t trust news media today. I wouldn’t say everyone supports the status quo. In fact I think the vast majority of people don’t like the status quo. The discussion is always how to make it better. All that said, “conspiracies” are real and everywhere. I have multiple active conspiracies with my friends to go on a trip this fall, wife doesn’t know yet. Lol My point was actually that conspiracies are all around us. Being apart of them is common. That makes us apart of something and makes us happy. Social cohesion wasn’t exactly what I was discussing, but I don’t think cohesion is actually necessary - so long as everyone tolerates one another. That said I do see your point. The search for truth is definitely key. But truth isn’t much different than faith. Imo believing truth is a willingness to accept constantly being wrong. You much always change your opinions.

etherael 4y ago
> Lol… the founding documents of the United States are pretty explicit about not trusting government. Something like 80% of people don’t trust news media today. Sure, but that's not what I mean by the status quo. Almost all humans support the status quo as defined by what they believe their tribal ingroup supports, they believe that those other people who are aligned with themselves are the only ones privy to "the real story" and the people in the other tribe are evil and/or stupid. They both support the status quo as "why can't everyone just be reasonable like me and my people", and "the government" or "the media" as expeditionary forces against them are viewed as enemies to their status quo. By contrast, it is extremely rare you will find people who acknowledge the bounds of their certainty about what's actually going on, that they aren't so sure that what they think about how things should be done is the right way to go, that they're willing to subject their prescriptions to empirical analysis, that they think maybe there are things they don't know and indeed things nobody knows that significantly impact all of the above factors, and if on reflection and analysis the status quo can be shown to be deficient in a concrete way, they accept that it should be overhauled. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there's enough of these people in the world that they actually could be a tribe, and when I see them musing to themselves in the obscure fringes in which they operate, they frequently make reference to the fact that they often feel like clowns that don't fit anywhere at all. It's true these people do tend to view government and media with suspicion, but the difference between them and their tribal counterparts is that they've always viewed government and media that way, and government and media have in turn always been opposed to them, as the glue that holds together the tribal factions that otherwise tend to dominate society and whose favor those entities are constantly trying to curry, frequently by casting aspersions on those outsiders.