Newsflash: Conspiracy theorists gullible

agc

11 years ago

^ how is that different from any other discussion here? ;-)

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9904484].message }}

Joshua Rigley

Banned 11 years ago

The researchers found that adherents to conspiracy theories are highly receptive to claims that support their views and rarely engage with social media pages that question their beliefs.

In other words, conspiracy theorists are just like everyone else.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9904532].message }}

lanfear63 11 years ago

Its just a conspiracy to give us conspiracy theorists a bad rap. Did you see what site that article came from?

It's Aliens and that's the end of it!
- Thanks
Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9904570].message }}
Claude Whitacre 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Joshua Rigley

In other words, conspiracy theorists are just like everyone else.

Not everyone else.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

â€œDo not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.â€ - Matsuo Basho
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9904705].message }}
- Joshua Rigley Banned 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre
  
  Not everyone else.
  
  Claude, you understand, of course, that I was excluding you when I said that. I know that nobody's quite like you.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  2 replies
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9904712].message }}
  
  Claude Whitacre 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Joshua Rigley
  
  Claude, you understand, of course, that I was excluding you when I said that. I know that nobody's quite like you.
  
  Nicely played. And if you're being sarcastic....even more nicely played.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr
  
  â€œDo not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.â€ - Matsuo Basho
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9904719].message }}
  
  lanfear63 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Joshua Rigley
  
  Claude, you understand, of course, that I was excluding you when I said that. I know that nobody's quite like you.
  
  Who is this nobody character? Do I know him, does he post on the forum.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9904722].message }}
  
  Mark Singletary 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by lanfear63
  
  Who is this nobody character? Do I know him, does he post on the forum.
  
  My Name Is Nobody - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
  I saw this when I was a kid. It's about a cowboy that comes to call himself nobody - I forget why. One of the lines I remember very clearly (or not so much but I know the gist).
  
  They were being bullied or something and somebody said to the bully "I bet nobody can whip you" or something like that. The bully agreed laughing at the fact that he knew nobody could whip him since he was so bad until nobody got up and proved that nobody could whip him.
  
  My contribution to the OT forum for the day. Peace and out.
  
  Mark
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9904744].message }}
  
  tagiscom 11 years ago
  
  The herd is always right, because almost everyone thinks that they are right!
  
  True, as you have said Sal, if some individuals go against popular media they are branded!
  
  Glad the Wright Brothers ignored the so called experts!
  
  "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.
  
  And these other inventions, knocked by so called experts!
  
  Top 30 Failed Technology Predictions - Listverse
  
  Popular media, text books, and experts, can get it wrong, so following the herd might be convenient and socially acceptable, but it can be wrong, and downright dangerous in some areas!
  
  But l do agree in some cases believers can go off the rails to continue to believe in something that is losing its' wheels.
  
  I will believe in something if reasonable proof can be found, the mass media tend to go for the idea that makes the most money, not necessarily what is right!
  
  But people have the right to choose, eventhough if the herd get spooked, they will go off the cliff together!
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  `
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9904783].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

This is the same inflammatory type of crap as all those studies that prove that "conspiracy theorists" are A. - stupider than everyone else B. Smarter than everyone else.

There's crap building up on both sides of the river. I see both sides posting complete BS - sometimes outright lies, sometimes stuff that's cut out of context to make one party or the other look completely out of line. There's not a media out there that doesn't have some crap on it. People on both sides fall in line with whatever is posted that supports their own side.

You know better than this one, Paul.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9904743].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

The term "conspiracy theory" was first used some time early in the 20th century and was a neutral term. It didn't start to take on negative connotations until Kennedy was shot and people weren't satisfied with the "official" story. Now every slip programmed yahoo in the country (and maybe others?) uses it to derail anyone who believes anything but an "official" story on any subject whatsoever.

Where do we draw the line on who is and who isn't a conspiracy theorist, though?

Is it someone who, like I did, told people that the FED was a bank and not a branch of gov before it was general knowledge? I was called everything but sane for that one for decades.

Is it someone who thinks that aliens are controlling us or that our reps are shape shifting lizards? Maybe someone who believes the world is going to come to an end during the next crisis? Which crisis? Scientists say we're in deep shyte unless we cut loose of corporate greed and fix the ecosystems as in yesterday. Are they conspiracy theorists? Some people say our kids are in jeopardy of dying of measles (something that just doesn't happen in the US, hasn't for decades despite kids being unvaxed). Are they conspiracy theorists? Thinking that NSA is watching everyone beyond their right to do so......is that conspiracy theorist thinking?

There's no line drawn on the word. It's flung by anyone who wants to create social condemnation of anyone who believes other than an official story about anything - politics, science, finance, etc.

It's a word with little meaning, and a negative connotation. It means nothing other than a means to fling poop at someone who doesn't like your point of view on any given issue.

My alien shape-shifting lizard pal warned me thusly.

[ 2 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9904840].message }}

Joe Mobley

11 years ago

Why do people see the Virgin Mary on cheese sandwiches or hear demonic lyrics in "Stairway to Heaven"? Using video, images and music, professional skeptic Michael Shermer explores these and other phenomena, including UFOs and alien sightings. He offers cognitive context: In the absence of sound science, incomplete information can combine with the power of suggestion (helping us hear those Satanic lyrics in Led Zeppelin). In fact, he says, humans tend to convince ourselves to believe: We overvalue the "hits" that support our beliefs, and discount the more numerous "misses."

Michael Shermer: Why people believe weird things...

Joe Mobley

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9904891].message }}

Joe Mobley

11 years ago

And... if you need a little help deciding...

Michael Shermer: Baloney Detection Kit - YouTube

With a sea of information coming at us from all directions, how do we sift out the misinformation and bogus claims, and get to the truth? Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine lays out a "Baloney Detection Kit," ten questions we should ask when encountering a claim.

The 10 Questions:

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
2.Does the source make similar claims?
3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
4. Does this fit with the way the world works?
5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

Joe Mobley

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9904921].message }}

Paul Myers 11 years ago

Al,

^ how is that different from any other discussion here? ;-)

Conspiracy theorists are more likely to promote things which are actively and objectively harmful. Not usually their intentions, but that's the result.

Joshua,

In other words, conspiracy theorists are just like everyone else.

Except for the difference noted above, yeah. Well, that and a distinct tendency to disbelieve perceived authority simply because it's perceived as an authority.

Paul
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9904984].message }}

positivenegative 11 years ago

How social media drives conspiracy theories (Wired UK)
- [ 7 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9904899].message }}

Paul Myers

11 years ago

You know better than this one, Paul.

Oh?

The premise outlined in that article precisely matches my observations of how people behave on Facebook. And here.

People on both sides fall in line with whatever is posted that supports their own side.

Wait. Isn't that part of the psychology you dismissed so cavalierly just a few days ago?

There's a distinction between cognitive bias and an overdeveloped affinity for conspiracy theory, ma'am. They intersect, but not in a healthy place.

Now every slip programmed yahoo in the country (and maybe others?) uses it to derail anyone who believes anything but an "official" story on any subject whatsoever.

That's not how most people use the phrase. In fact, the only people I've ever heard claim it meant that were folks who were busy telling everyone how much smarter they were because they didn't believe anything "official." They used it in just the way you have here: To slant a perspective.

Patterns, Sal. Patterns.

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9904904].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Oh?

The premise outlined in that article precisely matches my observations of how people behave on Facebook. And here.Wait. Isn't that part of the psychology you dismissed so cavalierly just a few days ago?

There's a distinction between cognitive bias and an overdeveloped affinity for conspiracy theory, ma'am. They intersect, but not in a healthy place.That's not how most people use the phrase. In fact, the only people I've ever heard claim it meant that were folks who were busy telling everyone how much smarter they were because they didn't believe anything "official." They used it in just the way you have here: To slant a perspective.

Patterns, Sal. Patterns.

Paul

Yes, I understand patterns and apatternicity, both.

As I said - people use the term to dismiss any idea they don't agree with. Where is the line between someone who just sees something wrong and the actual "conspiracy theory" line?

How do you explain, or what do you call, people who will believe even the wildest lies as long as they are "mainstream" oriented? Aren't they the same as conspiracy theorists but at the opposite point of the pole? What do you call people who will completely destroy themselves or others because of some crap an "expert" or "authority" flings at them? I call that gullibility, too.

I've seen both sides of gullibility on FB. FB is nutcase central - all sides of it. There's more propaganda on that site (from both sides of any issue) than would ever been dreamed of being able to be created just decades ago.

What I am saying to you is that this "scientific" study, had a presupposed outcome and was biased toward one side of the line. You can get the same results with those who insist that the only point of view is the official one.

This was as slanted a study as the one that said that conspiracy theorists are smarter than the average person. It just goes in the other direction. I don't see that they studied the opposite end of the spectrum at all. All statistics say that gun control causes violence - you want to post about gun freedom and watch the trolls rage? You didn't see it, because this study was set up predisposed to making "conspiracy theorists" look different from the people who never fail to see the official view as the correct one.

People of both sides are guilty of gullibility, and I've seen them scream equally as loud and troll just as hard as "conspiracy theorists" do.

BTW - when there are two views of science in an issue that can be attributed to equally qualified scientists, why is it only the politically pushed view seen to be the right one?

How far do you go into geoengineering (chemtrails) before you hit conspiracy theory and fake science? There are geoengineering contractors in the US. You can find their websites online -- you can find their permits for cloud seeding. You can find the lawsuit that ID sued OR for it because it took their water. What are they spraying? Where does the idea of chemtrails go from real to conspiracy theory? You can't say that 193 countries illegalized geoengineering then turn around and say believing in chemtrails is "gullible" or "conspiracy theory". Is it a matter of listing what is being sprayed? Thinking that it doesn't go on, in light of the companies that actually DO that for a living and have gov permits to do so is a tad stupid, ya know?

Where do you draw the lines - and when someone doesn't step over that line but gets trolled for being a conspiracy theorist - how would this report explain the "reverse is also true" via that study?

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9904997].message }}

Dellco

11 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9905020].message }}

John Durham

11 years ago

For years now I have been in the place where I thought everything Obama did was bad... and consequently, I came across every bad article about him, even when I wasn't looking for it. I just thought "There is NO good news about this man to be found."

However, recently a friend sat down and told me all the good he has done and gave me some different perspectives, and my dogmatic attitude had to change, as I actually started admiring the man looking at him from a different perspective... I couldn't believe how I had not seen these things. Where did I miss it? Why wasn't that news showing up in front of me?

My point is that we always find what we are looking for. Once the mind creates a filter, then that's all it see's... I often fall into conspiracy thinking, as do many others...some even fall into anti conspirators thinking... and we all fail to be objective if we don't guard our minds. Truth is hard to see when you are bent , or have been sold on certain ideas, everything you see will confirm what you are thinking. Right or wrong.

As to why I didn't see these articles of good news. I think this: (From Wiki)

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. When inconsistency (dissonance) is experienced, individuals tend to become psychologically uncomfortable and they are motivated to attempt to reduce this dissonance, as well as actively avoiding situations and information which are likely to increase it.

The theory uses the word "actively", which to some connotes "Consciously" ... but I think we do it on all kinds of levels, even unaware.

[ 2 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9905113].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

Yep, John - cognitive dissonance also works from both ends of the line. It's usually used by the "conspiracy" side of the line to describe why some people can't see past the official view.

I recently saw a clip of a video of Obama that people were absolutely raging over. If what he was saying in that video had been the whole point, it would have been WWIII worthy. However -- it was only less than a minute long and came in while he was talking, cut out after just one sentence. So I looked up a longer version because it didn't seem right. The audience was calm, too, and I couldn't imagine him saying what it sounded like he was saying without any unrest rippling through the audience. The longer version that piece was cut from was saying the exact opposite of what the cut sounded like it was saying.

That pissed me off royally and I did my own rant on that one. I blocked the site it came from. I don't need information from that source. At all. How the heck do you support a position when people that have the same position will post crap that's just enough of a blatant ruse to be called outright lying. I don't like this admin. At all - but it ticks me off when someone pulls something that misleading in an attempt to corral allies. Both sides are doing that right now and it's not doing anything but polarizing people to dangerous extents.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9905164].message }}

John Durham

11 years ago

I always love hearing your thoughts Sal.

Very few people are capable of non biased, truly objective thinking in all areas, if ANY.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9905268].message }}

tagiscom

11 years ago

There are some views that people are comfortable believing in and other views they are not!

I convinced someone on another forum about something mass media wasn't covering, (eventhough they should have) and she got angry at me, for showing her the truth!!!!

Some individuals want to feel safe and secure, eventhough they aren't aware of the truth!

And others will ignore facts, dismiss good evidence and regardless of how persistent the duck is at quacking, they will only see a pink elephant!

I am amazed at how many people can't see the duck, and say, "l don't know what it is" well, if it quacks, etc, then it is probably a duck!!!!

Stupidly, mass conditioning, showing crap on tv, l don't know how society ended up like this, but a whole army of sociopaths can't put a lid on this forever!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

`

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9905395].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

I convinced someone on another forum about something mass media wasn't covering, (eventhough they should have) and she got angry at me, for showing her the truth!!!!

Some individuals want to feel safe and secure, eventhough they aren't aware of the truth

... and some will quote and cite known quacks and call it the truth. lol.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9905536].message }}

tagiscom

11 years ago

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

`

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9905547].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9905572].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

...and in 100 years we'll look back a today's "miracle" drugs in much this same way. Snake oil.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9906237].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

...and in 100 years we'll look back a today's "miracle" drugs in much this same way. Snake oil.

Some maybe, but none of the medicines pictured actually worked, except for the stupid people who ate tapeworms for weight control. lol.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9906573].message }}

MissTerraK

11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Some maybe, but none of the medicines pictured actually worked, except for the stupid people who ate tapeworms for weight control. lol.

Sanitized tapeworms, Suzanne, sanitized. Haha!

Terra

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9906587].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

Sanitized tapeworms, Suzanne, sanitized. Haha!

Terra

... and one does wonder .... how do you sanitize a tapeworm? Give it a bubble bath?

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9906763].message }}

butters 11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

... and one does wonder .... how do you sanitize a tapeworm? Give it a bubble bath?

Drink a lot of fizzy drinks
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9906770].message }}

MissTerraK

11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

... and one does wonder .... how do you sanitize a tapeworm? Give it a bubble bath?

LOL Suzanne!

I have to admit that I didn't wonder that at all. But now that you've thrown it out there, by dropping it in a bottle of alcohol?

Hey, I wonder if that's how the worm in the bottle of Tequila started, haha!

Terra

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9906826].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

LOL Suzanne!

I have to admit that I didn't wonder that at all. But now that you've thrown it out there, by dropping it in a bottle of alcohol?

Hey, I wonder if that's how the worm in the bottle of Tequila started, haha!

Terra

Well, the thing is ... alcohol would kill it and then it wouldn't be effective as a weight loss product. It must be alive and grow in your body and consume all your nutrients to be effective.

Advertisements for tapeworms as a weight-loss tool from the early 20th century indicate that tapeworms have been marketed as a weight-loss product for over 100 years, and despite the known health risks, tapeworms continue to be advertised and sold today. Though this practice is illegal in the United States, individuals are still able to obtain these products in other countries or via the Internet. By intentionally ingesting these parasites and becoming infected, individuals hope to lose weight and then take a medication that will rid their body of the tapeworm. Unfortunately, many of the people who undertake such extreme measures for weight loss do not understand the potential risks involved, and the dangerous practice of ingesting tapeworms to lose weight should not be considered under any circumstances.

Eating Tapeworms for Weight Loss - MedicineNet

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9906846].message }}

MissTerraK

11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Well, the thing is ... alcohol would kill it and then it wouldn't be effective as a weight loss product. It must be alive and grow in your body and consume all your nutrients to be effective.

Haha!
I know how tapeworms work, but I meant dip it in alcohol not drown it.

Terra

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9906857].message }}

BigFrank Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

then it wouldn't be effective as a weight loss product. It must be alive and grow in your body and consume all your nutrients to be effective.

Not true. You eat it, vomit and lose weight.

You're really not up on this science stuff, are you?

Cheers. - Frank
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9906883].message }}

MikeAmbrosio 11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Some maybe, but none of the medicines pictured actually worked, except for the stupid people who ate tapeworms for weight control. lol.

Science was incredibly different then - which I am sure you know.

As someone who has worked in Pharma the past 27 years, you'd be surprised at just how many of the pills on the market today actually don't work - or work in a very small percentage of people - that are called block busters...LOL.

And also, you might be surprised at how many of those old remedies pictured actually DID work for some people. Placebo effect...
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9907859].message }}

butters

11 years ago

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9905507].message }}

John Durham

11 years ago

@Sal,

On another note, this realization didn't turn me into a flag waving, altruistic Obama fan, but it did enlighten me to the idea that he has also done a lot of good... In short; it caused me to view him more objectively.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9906146].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

Originally Posted by John Durham

@Sal,

On another note, this realization didn't turn me into a flag waving, altruistic Obama fan, but it did enlighten me to the idea that he has also done a lot of good... In short; it caused me to view him more objectively.

It makes me want to puke just hearing his voice. However - the fact is that he did not stand in front of a group of people and tell them to give up their personal freedoms and do whatever government tells them to do because they aren't capable of deciding anything for themselves. That's not "objectivity" or "bias". It's just fact.

I used to share memes that my friends posted that I knew other friends would be interested in seeing on FB - and we'd discuss them. There were too many people that didn't "get it" that I was more putting stuff up for discussion than to "inform" them so I don't do it anymore. Now I only put up personal stuff, and informational stuff. I'm sitting in this thread hearing that "conspiracy theorists are gullible", though, and thinking of all the trolls I had to unfriend because they'd troll anything and everything you said that wasn't the media view on something. Some considered me a "conspiracy theorist" even though I could give link after link from sources just as, if not more, authoritative as their own sources. It's almost not worth trying to share ideas with anyone who doesn't have an expert knowledge of the whole information chain anymore. I won't argue about bills anymore. When someone refuses to read the very bill they are screaming about - at that point it gets totally absurd to even consider bothering with them.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9906930].message }}

Paul Myers

11 years ago

Sal,

even though I could give link after link from sources just as, if not more, authoritative as their own sources.

You mean, like the links you posted which Lee showed had nothing to offer in the way of real support for the point you claimed to make?

You will never hear me claim that any issue doesn't have people on each side who are prone to confirmation bias. That would simply not be true. That said, some groups within most such circles are aware of the problem, and actively look to avoid it. Legitimate scientists should be the most active in that pursuit. That brings us to your question:

Where is the line between someone who just sees something wrong and the actual "conspiracy theory" line?

Awareness of the strength or weakness of their evidence, and the desire to find the truth, rather than prove some meta-point. Specifically, the person who "sees something wrong" isn't going in with the assumption that it exists and what it is.

They don't assume grand and improbable conspiracies as the most likely explanation for every perceived injustice.

They also rarely use terms like "sheeple" to support an argument, or suggest that anyone who disagrees with them must be either stupid or dishonest.

BTW - when there are two views of science in an issue that can be attributed to equally qualified scientists, why is it only the politically pushed view seen to be the right one?

By whom?

Most intelligent skeptics I know don't trust the "official" story any more than they do the unsupported rantings of conspiracy theorists. And they don't deny that there can be some active evil afoot without looking into it. They simply don't assume anything at all until there is substantive and compelling evidence to form a belief.

As far as the "other side" being guilty of some of the same things... Of course. Re-read the OP. I did mention that, I think.

You'll note, though, that the point of the article was the response of conspiracy theorists to absurd satire that ran in the same vein as their theories. And I have seen that on Facebook several times within just the past week.

I had a discussion on Facebook with someone on one of the political extremes not long ago. He spouted the usual line for his particular brand of froth, and I showed him an article from a respected source on his own side of the spectrum that listed actual votes and decisions and actions. It showed him to be 100% wrong on the facts.

Note: Not speculation. Not opinion. Not assignment of unproven intent. Merely public statements and their votes and actions on the related issues.

He as simply wrong, based in fact and nothing but.

If I posted the same links here, two things would happen. The head of every partisan poster in the section (both sides) would explode, and I'd get banned for a month (justly, I might add).

For pure fact.

That's how bad it is, here and in the rest of the United States.

Another couple of things would happen that're actually relevant to this discussion. The people who want to believe that particular set of myths would continue to believe them. And some folks would call it propaganda, despite it being nothing more than a list of facts, from the side that should theoretically be making the opposite argument.

I see much less of that garbage on Facebook any more, since I started unfollowing the folks who post almost nothing but bile. From either side of the hot button arguments.

And I spend a lot less time in here. Largely because a few of the arguments that derail almost every discussion of substance have made me sick to my stomach for years, and I no longer have any obligation to expose myself to it.

Doesn't mean I like the people any less, but it's nice to be able to treat angry rantings online the way I do when my friends do it offline. Walk away and let them rant.

Paul

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9907160].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Sal,You mean, like the links you posted which Lee showed had nothing to offer in the way of real support for the point you claimed to make?

You will never hear me claim that any issue doesn't have people on each side who are prone to confirmation bias. That would simply not be true. That said, some groups within most such circles are aware of the problem, and actively look to avoid it. Legitimate scientists should be the most active in that pursuit. That brings us to your question:Awareness of the strength or weakness of their evidence, and the desire to find the truth, rather than prove some meta-point. Specifically, the person who "sees something wrong" isn't going in with the assumption that it exists and what it is.

They don't assume grand and improbable conspiracies as the most likely explanation for every perceived injustice.

They also rarely use terms like "sheeple" to support an argument, or suggest that anyone who disagrees with them must be either stupid or dishonest.By whom?

Most intelligent skeptics I know don't trust the "official" story any more than they do the unsupported rantings of conspiracy theorists. And they don't deny that there can be some active evil afoot without looking into it. They simply don't assume anything at all until there is substantive and compelling evidence to form a belief.

As far as the "other side" being guilty of some of the same things... Of course. Re-read the OP. I did mention that, I think.

You'll note, though, that the point of the article was the response of conspiracy theorists to absurd satire that ran in the same vein as their theories. And I have seen that on Facebook several times within just the past week.

I had a discussion on Facebook with someone on one of the political extremes not long ago. He spouted the usual line for his particular brand of froth, and I showed him an article from a respected source on his own side of the spectrum that listed actual votes and decisions and actions. It showed him to be 100% wrong on the facts.

Note: Not speculation. Not opinion. Not assignment of unproven intent. Merely public statements and their votes and actions on the related issues.

He as simply wrong, based in fact and nothing but.

If I posted the same links here, two things would happen. The head of every partisan poster in the section (both sides) would explode, and I'd get banned for a month (justly, I might add).

For pure fact.

That's how bad it is, here and in the rest of the United States.

Another couple of things would happen that're actually relevant to this discussion. The people who want to believe that particular set of myths would continue to believe them. And some folks would call it propaganda, despite it being nothing more than a list of facts, from the side that should theoretically be making the opposite argument.

I see much less of that garbage on Facebook any more, since I started unfollowing the folks who post almost nothing but bile. From either side of the hot button arguments.

And I spend a lot less time in here. Largely because a few of the arguments that derail almost every discussion of substance have made me sick to my stomach for years, and I no longer have any obligation to expose myself to it.

Doesn't mean I like the people any less, but it's nice to be able to treat angry rantings online the way I do when my friends do it offline. Walk away and let them rant.

Paul

I get all that, Paul. My objections are fully with the the line "conspiracy theorists are more gullible than........" because I've found it not to be true until you get to the very far side of "conspiracy theory". People that lean that far on the other side are equally as gullible. That's my whole argument.

I have no qualm that people that believe things like the one that if Yellowstone blows it's going to take out most of the population are gullible. There's not enough molten magma down there to do much beyond produce a pyroclastic flow. Yet there are people still insisting that life on earth will end if it blows. That type of thinking - yeah it's pretty gullible. Those that fell for 2012 were fighting against the science.

Turn it around and I was called a conspiracy theorist, a nutcase for a few decades for saying the FED was a bank. Why? Because our sweet gov wouldn't do that to us. It took half of my life to be exonerated for knowing something before it became mainstream knowledge. So this kind of headline to me is just inflammatory.

People are calling me names now for saying thimerasol is toxic. Yet 35 links on Pubmed is where I got my info. I heard it from a "conspiracy theorist" first, but looked it up. It's dangerous enough that they took it out of most vacs and little kids aren't supposed to be given a vac with it in them. Even many people's favorite medical source says they took it out because of it. The lawsuits that were paid off for it is listed right on the CDC website. But the media has said otherwise so I'm gullible.

That's why this subject upsets me. Media has our whole country so polarized on every damned issue that comes up that it's impossible to find common grounds. That's okay with me. I do the research and know that people are going to think what they're going to think. We all take our own chances and I don't care what people's decisions are on a subject as long as it doesn't drag my life into them.

Anyone on the far end of statism or on the far side of conspiracy theory has mental problems. To point to the people of just one side of the line is not honest. Period.

I've also been unfollowing anyone so far on one side or the other that they aren't able to be reached and I'm a little sick of being called stupid in here after I do massive amounts of research on a subject. I've been stating my case and if people want to call my sources crap - even though if they looked at some of those links, they'd find they're sometimes the very sources that they claim have opposite views than I can find right on the website, well...............at that point I just leave the thread. There's no use in trying to fight that kind of thinking. And I don't care what side of the line they fall on. I hate the US admin we have - but when I saw that a speech was clipped to 2 sentences that made what the Pres was saying sound like he was saying the exact opposite - I unfollowed for it after telling them that it was this kind of crap that gave ammo to the other side to call my side stupid.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9909504].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

The outlandishness coupled with the easy debunkability of some of the theories is what astounds me.

These folks that still hang on to such theories are for the most part, adults in charge of helping shape the future for their posterity. I find the trend disturbing to say the least.

If they were in a little corner of the public discourse - with no impact, I wouldn't be concerned, but successfully dealing a few very important public policy issues with serious implications for everyone's future has been sidetracked, slowed down, etc., by this crowd - egged on by various entities who want to maintain the status quo and/or make a buck off the gullibility.

Item:

I've been told that the great stadiums of the U.S. were built exclusively to house people when the crackdown comes.