5 ms·

In other words, this as how human societies naturally build consensus.

by yesco 4y ago

cbsmith 4y ago
No, consensus building is the reverse. It's people playing the game vs. the game playing people: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/qanon-game-plays-believers/2021/05/10/31d8ea46-928b-11eb-a74e-1f4cf89fd948_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/qanon-game-plays-beli... Consensus building is looking for ways to persuade people who aren't predisposed to an idea to come around to it (and because it's bidirectional, simultaneously being open to ideas one isn't predisposed to). Conspiracy theories are looking for ways to become something that fits people's predispositions.
- t0bia_s 4y ago
  "Conspiracy theories are looking for ways to become something that fits people's predispositions." Maybe that is exactly yours predisposition?
  - cbsmith 4y ago
    Umm... I guess? What do you imagine happens to conspiracy theories that don't fit people's predispositions?
    - t0bia_s 4y ago
      Those get a new name. Hoax, fake news, relativisation, anti-whatever, propaganda, PR...
      - cbsmith 4y ago
        Wait, are you asserting that calling them "conspiracy theory" implies they fit people's predispositions?
        t0bia_s 4y ago
        Isn't that what you tried to write in previous post? Generally I think pejorative categorization implies a lack of arguments or interest in specific topic. It is easier to say that something is conspiracy theory (or... you name it) than bringing arguments that supports different point of view.
        cbsmith 4y ago
        > Isn't that what you tried to write in previous post? Really not. > Generally I think pejorative categorization implies a lack of arguments or interest in specific topic. > > It is easier to say that something is conspiracy theory (or... you name it) than bringing arguments that supports different point of view. I think you've lost the thread here. You seem to be arguing against yourself. I'm not assigning a pejorative categorization or speaking to whether a particular story is or isn't a conspiracy theory. All I'm saying is that, by their very nature, if a conspiracy theory didn't look like it was true to its audience, it wouldn't have much of an audience, and I provided a link to a pretty detailed explanation of how the phenomenon works. I'm surprised you find this controversial, but it's entirely possible I'm wrong. I'd honestly love to hear something that explains how conspiracy theories that don't look like they are true to their audience nonetheless do garner an audience.
        t0bia_s 4y ago
        "All I'm saying is that, by their very nature, if a conspiracy theory didn't look like it was true to its audience, it wouldn't have much of an audience..." I don't think thats allways true. For example cremation masses in concentration camps during WW2 was so horrible that noone sane believe it. So then come denial not only of this information but also those who spread it. Similar phenomenon we se nowdays. Audience comes when those who spread those information (Im not judge validation of it) are suppressed. This makes interest. Sorry, I'm not native English speaker, my expression in words is limited.
        cbsmith 4y ago

In other words, this as how human societies naturally build consensus.

by yesco 4y ago

In other words, this as how human societies naturally build consensus.

No, consensus building is the reverse. It's people playing the game vs. the game playing people: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/qanon-game-plays-believers/2021/05/10/31d8ea46-928b-11eb-a74e-1f4cf89fd948_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/qanon-game-plays-beli... Consensus building is looking for ways to persuade people who aren't predisposed to an idea to come around to it (and because it's bidirectional, simultaneously being open to ideas one isn't predisposed to). Conspiracy theories are looking for ways to become something that fits people's predispositions.

t0bia_s 4y ago
"Conspiracy theories are looking for ways to become something that fits people's predispositions." Maybe that is exactly yours predisposition?
- cbsmith 4y ago
  Umm... I guess? What do you imagine happens to conspiracy theories that don't fit people's predispositions?
  - t0bia_s 4y ago
    Those get a new name. Hoax, fake news, relativisation, anti-whatever, propaganda, PR...
    - cbsmith 4y ago
      Wait, are you asserting that calling them "conspiracy theory" implies they fit people's predispositions?
      - t0bia_s 4y ago
        Isn't that what you tried to write in previous post? Generally I think pejorative categorization implies a lack of arguments or interest in specific topic. It is easier to say that something is conspiracy theory (or... you name it) than bringing arguments that supports different point of view.
        cbsmith 4y ago
        > Isn't that what you tried to write in previous post? Really not. > Generally I think pejorative categorization implies a lack of arguments or interest in specific topic. > > It is easier to say that something is conspiracy theory (or... you name it) than bringing arguments that supports different point of view. I think you've lost the thread here. You seem to be arguing against yourself. I'm not assigning a pejorative categorization or speaking to whether a particular story is or isn't a conspiracy theory. All I'm saying is that, by their very nature, if a conspiracy theory didn't look like it was true to its audience, it wouldn't have much of an audience, and I provided a link to a pretty detailed explanation of how the phenomenon works. I'm surprised you find this controversial, but it's entirely possible I'm wrong. I'd honestly love to hear something that explains how conspiracy theories that don't look like they are true to their audience nonetheless do garner an audience.
        t0bia_s 4y ago
        "All I'm saying is that, by their very nature, if a conspiracy theory didn't look like it was true to its audience, it wouldn't have much of an audience..." I don't think thats allways true. For example cremation masses in concentration camps during WW2 was so horrible that noone sane believe it. So then come denial not only of this information but also those who spread it. Similar phenomenon we se nowdays. Audience comes when those who spread those information (Im not judge validation of it) are suppressed. This makes interest. Sorry, I'm not native English speaker, my expression in words is limited.
        cbsmith 4y ago