4 ms·

>Need for cognition has been variously defined as "a need to structure relevant situations in meaningful, integrated ways" and "a need to understand and make re

>Need for cognition has been variously defined as "a need to structure relevant situations in meaningful, integrated ways" and "a need to understand and make reasonable the experiential world" - So basically your average conspiracy theorist.

uoaei 4y ago
Conspiracy theorists demote things like "parsimony" in favor of "holism" and "explanatory power". There's a reason the text says "reasonable" and not merely "comprehensible".
- optimalsolver 4y ago
  "Reasonable" is pretty subjective.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    "Being reasonable" is more or less universally defined as "balancing between parsimony and explainability in a good-faith analysis". Take it from the entire field of philosophy of science if you won't take it from me.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      One could make the argument that "good-faith" is subjective, except that would imply that things like logical fallacies cannot exist. However it is true that values frameworks shape how we investigate questions and what we feel comfortable proposing as solutions. Many proposals can be "reasonable" and simultaneously mutually exclusive or even destructive.
benrawk 4y ago
It is not a crazy idea to conceptualize some conspiracy theorists as people who (1) have a high need for cognition (brain wheels are always turning), and (2) direct that at developing wrong/misguided/motivated frameworks for the world.
- parentheses 4y ago
  High NFC with low education or access to information.
  - BazookaMusic 4y ago
    I would say it's more about low empathy and ability to scrutinize their beliefs. This is very often paired with a nice dose of narcissism which makes them think that everyone else is an idiot and has flawed thinking, while they're immune to it.
jdthedisciple 4y ago
You are aware though that yesterday's conspiracy theories have now repeatedly proven to become tomorrow's mainstream headlines, right?
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Depends on the theory. I doubt we're going to discover proof that Moscow was hit by a nuke in 1812. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENwllHqDIE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENwllHqDIE
  - preordained 4y ago
    And this is why no one can see eye to eye...because no one wants to. The slightest nerve jangled and we start arguing in bad faith
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      Who's arguing?

uoaei 4y ago

Conspiracy theorists demote things like "parsimony" in favor of "holism" and "explanatory power". There's a reason the text says "reasonable" and not merely "comprehensible".

optimalsolver 4y ago
"Reasonable" is pretty subjective.
- uoaei 4y ago
  "Being reasonable" is more or less universally defined as "balancing between parsimony and explainability in a good-faith analysis". Take it from the entire field of philosophy of science if you won't take it from me.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    One could make the argument that "good-faith" is subjective, except that would imply that things like logical fallacies cannot exist. However it is true that values frameworks shape how we investigate questions and what we feel comfortable proposing as solutions. Many proposals can be "reasonable" and simultaneously mutually exclusive or even destructive.

benrawk 4y ago

It is not a crazy idea to conceptualize some conspiracy theorists as people who (1) have a high need for cognition (brain wheels are always turning), and (2) direct that at developing wrong/misguided/motivated frameworks for the world.

parentheses 4y ago
High NFC with low education or access to information.
- BazookaMusic 4y ago
  I would say it's more about low empathy and ability to scrutinize their beliefs. This is very often paired with a nice dose of narcissism which makes them think that everyone else is an idiot and has flawed thinking, while they're immune to it.

jdthedisciple 4y ago

You are aware though that yesterday's conspiracy theories have now repeatedly proven to become tomorrow's mainstream headlines, right?

Apocryphon 4y ago
Depends on the theory. I doubt we're going to discover proof that Moscow was hit by a nuke in 1812. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENwllHqDIE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENwllHqDIE
- preordained 4y ago
  And this is why no one can see eye to eye...because no one wants to. The slightest nerve jangled and we start arguing in bad faith
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Who's arguing?