Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lpuckeri t1_ivvxuq6 wrote

Just look at people like Terrance Howard.

A genuinely stupid person...

Deep need to possess special knowledge...

Cant actually understand math at a deep level or put in effort to get a math degree...

Invents his own theory of mathematics 1x1 = 2 and thinks math and science experts are a cabal of idiots.

31

mglj42 t1_ivwz82v wrote

Examples like these are comforting but others are much less so. Most recently Dr Oz has been in the news after losing a midterm race. At the start of his career he was lauded as an academic surgeon, but he has since embraced a number of ideas that led David Gorski to label him America’s Quack. That highly qualified individuals with impressive credentials can nevertheless adopt pseudoscientific beliefs has even led to the idea of a Nobel disease:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease

The point is that while various attributes (such as education) provide some protection from unsupported beliefs, it is not perfect. In fact it may even be worse than this, since Uscinski is quoted in the article as claiming we all probably entertain some conspiracy theories.

19

lpuckeri t1_ivxs07y wrote

No doubt, I'm definetely oversimplifying. Il go into some depth here since you had a great response.

I think it usually comes down to two main things: some sort of bias and lack of critical thinking in a certain area.

I think wanting for special knowledge is the most common bias. But there are near endless biases: religion, politics, tribalism, etc. I think being stupid is the most common reason for lack of critical thinking but bias often drives inconsistent epistemology.

I like to use my own conspiracy prone relatives for examples. They demand double blind clinical research for anything they dont like, yet are convinced by the slightest anecdotal evidence for virtually any idea that confirms their biases. Its a matter of bias and epistemological inconsistency. Ex. The US govt sent something to india for covid relief and didnt release the details. To them, this is proof that the US govt is shipping ivermectin to India because they know it works, yet is hiding it from their own population. An argument from ignorance is sufficient 'evidence' in this case, but the same person says epidemiological studies arent enough to prove adverse effects of the carnivore diet(even though tons of clinical research does exist). Shout out Joe Rogan for the misinfo on that one. The standards are scattershot.

They often take partial truths to illogical conclusions driven by their bias and lack of knowledge. Example people like Kanye:

Fact: Jews per capita are often wealthy people, own a lot of businesses and banks and often successful people. Conspiracy: well... theres a lot, im sure uve heard many Result: rampant anti semitism and a world war.

I've thought a lot about whats the problem with their thinking. I think the problem occurs when biases are stronger than your epistemology.

A common bias is wanting for special knowledge. These same people constantly fall for the "They don't want you to know this" type videos and literally fall into nft scams, and day trading scams, religious scams, you name it.

Whether its pure stupidity like Terrance Howard or taking facts and applying inconsistent epistemology like my relatives, the conspiracy is driven by bias and lack of knowledge in basically all cases.

Poor understanding of science is also super common. For smart people like Oz i think its excessive bias creating inconsistent episetomology(with some dishonest grifting on top), but its hard to know. The less intelligent or educated they are, the easier it is to see what makes them tick.

IMO its a scale of bias to epistemology. Stupid people don't need a lot of bias to tip that scale the wrong way, and smart people can still be really biased.

5

iiioiia t1_ivzzsvw wrote

At the time that you composed this message, did you realize that you are projecting your heuristic based beliefs onto millions of people that you've never met, and did you notice that there are a variety of other cognitive errors in your text?

Conspiracy theorists are surely dumb, but all people are, and are unable to realize it. And if anti-conspiracy theorists refuse to improve, why should conspiracy theorists improve?

6

lpuckeri t1_iw02v4c wrote

Lol u again

3

iiioiia t1_iw0lxm0 wrote

I am relentless in my pursuit of justice for all of humanity.

Also: did you notice that you didn't answer my question? It isn't only conspiracy theorists who are typically unable to defend their facts, it is almost all people, due to the manner in which the human mind evolved, combined with culture and educational curriculum.

5

[deleted] t1_iw02p83 wrote

I, too, appreciate the thoughtful response. However, as someone with above average levels of testosterone (within the reference range provided by my primary care doc) any credibility your argument may have had goes out the window when you use buzzwords like “christofascist”… using bullshit jargon is masturbatory. Explain it to me in a way that doesn’t make you sound like an edgy leftist atheist that just discovered Richard Dawkins or not at all.

3

lpuckeri t1_iw04f25 wrote

​

Im not sure how ur testosterone levels remove credit from a statement, that doesn't quite logically follow, but ok. I haven't checked in a while but i was high T last time as well. So... Nice? maybe that gives me credit back?

Sure you can ignore that word, it's well defined, but it is pretty unimportant to my point.

Tbh, i'm a centrist, and i didn't intend to get caught up on political bs, but its not a bold statement to say the evangelical far right and conspiracy go together like white and rice.

2

[deleted] t1_iw0ku84 wrote

I think extremes tend to gravitate toward conspiracy thinking whether left of right. On the right, you have the Ruby Ridge/sovereign citizen types and on the left you have the animal rights/antifa/race separatist terrorists. I am, of course, simplifying things but my argument still stands. All of these movements, as you correctly pointed out, rely on some sort of conspiracy to prop up their cause. What is baffling in many cases is that the leaders and/or members are not the dumb yokels many would like them to be, but educated, rational people. It’s fascinating stuff, but also terrifying because people can, and are, very easily swayed given the proper motives.

Also, I am sorry for being a prick.

3

lpuckeri t1_iw0mfb2 wrote

For sure its definetely the extremes that tend to go that way.

1

mglj42 t1_ivyn9f6 wrote

Thanks for taking the time to reply - it’s a topic that interests me too. However I’ve come to slightly different conclusions. First I think that conspiracy theories can be accounted for by the psychological function they perform rather than the fact people are susceptible to cognitive biases. In this I mean they make you feel better or perhaps resolve a conflict (which also feels good). Some examples:

  1. Covid origin conspiracies or anti-Semitic conspiracies give the holder special knowledge or prestige but can also give a sense of order which may be reassuring (over randomness).
  2. Jan 6th conspiracies among Republicans allow the holder to avoid unpleasant facts about Trump or some of his supporters. These would be difficult to reconcile with their worldview but conspiracy theories provide a way out. Claims about voting help them too.

This describes what people get out of believing in conspiracy theories but it doesn’t say how belief in conspiracy theories is maintained when there is so little (no) evidence for them. In this I think it’s possible that (cognitive) biases do not cause people to believe conspiracy theories but are instead utilised (not necessarily deliberately) to maintain the conspiracy belief. Here I’d generalise this to other deeply held beliefs, which is where individuals like Oz come in (although many tip over into outright conspiracism too).

In short people try to maintain a core set of beliefs about the world and desire consistency from events, because maintaining core beliefs feels good and having a world of facts that do not contradict them feels good too. Cognitive biases work to achieve this. However knowledge of cognitive biases and arguments can also be used to attack (all the) counter evidence/arguments. In this way otherwise thoughtful, intelligent people can cling to conspiracy theories. Educating them on critical thinking is therefore not always effective because the critical thinking strategies can be employed with a desired goal (to maintain those core beliefs). It can therefore be hard in practice for critical thinking to overcome biases because we can be biased in our critical thinking too.

2

iiioiia t1_iw00koe wrote

>1. Jan 6th conspiracies among Republicans allow the holder to avoid unpleasant facts about Trump or some of his supporters. These would be difficult to reconcile with their worldview but conspiracy theories provide a way out. Claims about voting help them too.

This is true of the other side as well, but to differing degrees and in differing ways, and the interest levels in the truth seem very similar.

Not to worry though, pre-planted memes (subconscious heuristics that control reality perception) to the rescue: "both sides", "false equivalency", etc.

Humans are a very interesting species - so much potential, but trapped in a self-reinforcing cycle of wilfull delusion and silliness.

3

lpuckeri t1_iw01gu2 wrote

I agree,

As Jeremy Bentham says: "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to de"

But i think cognitive biases perform those psychological functions you mentioned. They help people feel vindicated or superior, or good or belonging to a tribe, and they help us avoid the pain of things like cognitive dissonance, even if short sighted. That is exactly why we have biases, the same reason you mentioned

I think we are actually saying almost the exact same thing.

​

> In this way otherwise thoughtful, intelligent people can cling to conspiracy theories. Educating them on critical thinking is therefore not always effective because the critical thinking strategies can be employed with a desired goal (to maintain those core beliefs).

I think i mean the same thing by biases and you do by core beliefs. I refer to them as biases because just that word implies an irrational stickiness to the belief. But really i think we are saying close to the same thing.

I think that generally if people are more knowledgeable, have a sound epistemology, and are strong critical thinking they will generally need an even higher level of bias(or unwillingness to let go of core beliefs) to maintain extremely irrational beliefs like conspiracy theories.

I also think a core aspect of critical thinking is not letting your biases inform your beliefs. Unlike intelligence, which is basically horsepower. You can have lots lot of horsepower, but its more about getting the power down in the right direction. People who are smart but lack critical think are just spinning tires.

The definition from google: "The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence."

I kinda of agree with this definition

While ide say Oz is intelligent, i wouldn't say he has great critical thinking skills, and i wouldn't say his biases inform his critical thinking. An irrational intelligent person is definitely more difficult to debate and can be stubborn but i wouldn't call that person a critical thinker, as I think part of critical thinking requires deep introspection of biases, and consistent application of sound epistemology.

The conspiracy equation:

h = intelligence

c = critical thinking skills

b = bias

y = rationality

Y = B - HC^(2)

​

lol

good chat

2

mglj42 t1_iwtlaq1 wrote

Yes I think your use of bias to mean what I’ve called core beliefs is confusing given cognitive biases. But there is another equation. I think the strength of a belief (the degree of certainty someone claims for the truth or falsity of it) has 2 components. First the evidence they claim and second the importance to them that the belief is true or false. People believe true things and believe false things anywhere on these scales. When I use core beliefs I mean those beliefs that are far along the importance scale although they could be beliefs about almost anything. So someone can believe falsely that Rio de Janeiro is the capital of Brazil or falsely that Trump won the 2022 election but attach very different importance to these two beliefs. The problem is what happens when evidence and importance clash, which is something I think a conspiracy theory can resolve. Although it seems unlikely I would not even dismiss the possibility that someone would believe in a conspiracy to hide Rio as the true capital of Brazil!

Those who cite critical thinking as the solution to the problem of false beliefs are I think missing this other dimension. Critical thinking can allow you to address the evidence someone claims but it does not address the importance they attach to the belief. Even when someone has no grounds to believe something they can still believe it. I don’t know the answer here though, I’m merely questioning whether critical thinking is enough on it’s own. I have a favoured analogy here. The advocates of critical thinking (only) sometimes seem to me like the advocates of abstinence only as a way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. I’m not suggesting that abstinence only doesn’t work, just that I don’t think it’s something people do all that well!.

1

iiioiia t1_iw82kal wrote

> Fact -Testosterone levels are dropping globally every year. Fact- Altrazine is a pesticide that can turn male frogs to females. Conspiracy - liberal govts are putting shit in the water and food to lower testosterone and turn guys feminine, and thats also why gays and trans people are so common now, and men no longer act like traditional make 'me a sandwich bitch' types males. Proof the globalist and liberal elites want to lower the population, and fuck the world. Result- far right, masculine obsessed, christofascist, borderline incel conspiracy theorist. Reality- Testosterone levels dropping is explained extremely easily by obeistity rising, smoking dropping, and more sedentary work + lifestyles. > > > > I've thought a lot about whats the problem with their thinking. I think the problem occurs when biases are stronger than your epistemology.

This comment seems self-referential, and potentially self-refuting (in that you do not have the means to know the quality of thinking of conspiracy theorists, and you give no indication that you realize you are wholesale speculating).

0