Bad Thinkers Why do some people believe conspiracy theories?

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
Bad Thinkers Why do some people believe conspiracy theories?

History tells us that the "truth" behind many events rarely corresponds to those explanations emanating from "official" sources!

That being said, the internet has allowed these alternate "conspiracy theories" to penetrate into the political mainstream, whose explanations tend to be even less plausible than the "party line!"
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Details of neuroanatomy turn out to be better predictors of political outlook than family background, which is itself a very good predictor. Some people are more receptive to conspiracy theories than other people.

And perhaps world history would be quite different if Nevile Chamberlain had a larger amygdala. Or if Hideki Tojo had a larger ACG.

As stated, there is no way that you do not intend to imply a casual relationship between brain growths and conspiratorial thinking.

My objection stands until you stop making such a spurious and irrational point.
 
Last edited:

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian observes:
Details of neuroanatomy turn out to be better predictors of political outlook than family background, which is itself a very good predictor. Some people are more receptive to conspiracy theories than other people.

And perhaps world history would be quite different if Nevile Chamberlain had a larger amygdala. Or if Hideki Tojo had a larger ACG.

As stated, there is no way that you do not intend to imply a casal relationship between brain growths and conspiratorial thinking.

I'm pointing out that such thinking is strongly correlated with the robustness of certain parts of the brain. This is undeniably true, and makes one a good predictor of the other. That's not controversial, it's been repeatedly demonstrated. But that assertion has nothing to do with a causal relationship between them. It could be that British politician Neville Chamberlain was merely extra trusting, and if his ACG was enlarged, perhaps his trusting nature made it so. Likewise, it's possible that Hideki Tojo was naturally fearful of, and hostile to other nations, and this made his amydala more robust. We don't know that. It's even possible that one or both of these men were outliers and didn't fit the trend. Doesn't change the fact: there is an excellent correlation between political outlook and certain brain structures, even if we don't know the causal relationships, if any.

My objection stands until you stop making such a spurious and irrational point.

It's surprising that, after I've repeatedly shown you that my argument merely notes that such strong correlations make good predictors, while not showing causal relationships, that you continue to believe that I do think they show causal relationships.

And no, I'm not suggesting that you have an enlarged amygdala. For as far right as you are, you've demonstrated a great deal of intellectual curiosity, and very little hostility.

Which makes your assumption all the more puzzling to me.
 
Last edited:

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Bad Thinkers Why do some people believe conspiracy theories?

History tells us that the "truth" behind many events rarely corresponds to those explanations emanating from "official" sources!

That being said, the internet has allowed these alternate "conspiracy theories" to penetrate into the political mainstream, whose explanations tend to be even less plausible than the "party line!"

wow - a cogent, thoughtful, on-point and lucid post from jg : noway :

keep up the good work!
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
It's surprising that, after I've repeatedly shown you that my argument merely notes that such strong correlations make good predictors, while not showing causal relationships, that you continue to believe that I do think they show causal relationships.

And no, I'm not suggesting that you have an enlarged amygdala. For as far right as you are, you've demonstrated a great deal of intellectual curiosity, and very little hostility.

Which makes your assumption all the more puzzling to me.
I do not believe that you do think they show a causal relationship. It's quite obvious that you know better.

I do, however, believe that your intent is to suggest that conspiracy theorists and those on the right have similar brain malformations. The implication being obvious.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
I do not believe that you do think they show a causal relationship. It's quite obvious that you know better.

I do, however, believe that your intent is to suggest that conspiracy theorists and those on the right have similar brain malformations. The implication being obvious.

No more than I suggested that those on the left have brain malfunctions. These aren't malfunctions; they are normal variations in brain structure, and (please get this, which I've pointed out before) are both adaptive and useful in the right circumstances. If you suppose that a psychopath is just a regular guy, then you've made one mistake. If you suppose that "all those(insert ethnic group) people" are bad in some way, you made another mistake.

And yes, you can find leftists who likely have exaggerated fears of and hatred for people who present little threat to them. They are called "antifa." And there are rightists, who suppose that people like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Il are respectable and trustworthy leaders.

But they aren't the norm, are they?

But conspiracy buffs are those who have exaggerated responses to things that most of us would not perceive as threats. And that's well-correlated with some details of neuroanatomy.

Which doesn't mean causation; it merely means that one is a pretty good predictor of the other.
  • Conservatives are more likely to endorse ideologically congruent conspiracies than liberals.
  • Individuals with a high level of trust in institutions are less likely to endorse conspiracy theories.
  • Conservatives knowledgeable about politics are more likely to endorse ideologically congruent conspiracy theories. There is no evidence of a similar correlation among liberals.
  • Conservatives knowledgeable about politics who also have little trust in institutions are most associated with endorsement of ideologically consistent conspiracy theories: “Highly knowledgeable conservatives are more likely to engage in ideologically motivated endorsement, especially if they believe that the world is an untrustworthy place.”
  • Conservatives and liberals knowledgeable about politics are less likely than their unknowledgeable counterparts to endorse incongruent conspiracies – for example, a liberal is less likely to endorse the theory that President Obama was not born in the United States.
  • For liberals, greater knowledge about politics and greater trust in institutions both appear to decrease their tendency to endorse conspiracy theories.
https://journalistsresource.org/stud...owledge-trust/

Notice that :“Highly knowledgeable conservatives are more likely to engage in ideologically motivated endorsement, especially if they believe that the world is an untrustworthy place.”
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
No more than I suggested that those on the left have brain malfunctions. These aren't malfunctions; they are normal variations in brain structure, and (please get this, which I've pointed out before) are both adaptive and useful in the right circumstances. If you suppose that a psychopath is just a regular guy, then you've made one mistake. If you suppose that "all those(insert ethnic group) people" are bad in some way, you made another mistake.

And yes, you can find leftists who likely have exaggerated fears of and hatred for people who present little threat to them. They are called "antifa." And there are rightists, who suppose that people like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Il are respectable and trustworthy leaders.

But they aren't the norm, are they?

But conspiracy buffs are those who have exaggerated responses to things that most of us would not perceive as threats. And that's well-correlated with some details of neuroanatomy.

Which doesn't mean causation; it merely means that one is a pretty good predictor of the other.
  • Conservatives are more likely to endorse ideologically congruent conspiracies than liberals.
  • Individuals with a high level of trust in institutions are less likely to endorse conspiracy theories.
  • Conservatives knowledgeable about politics are more likely to endorse ideologically congruent conspiracy theories. There is no evidence of a similar correlation among liberals.
  • Conservatives knowledgeable about politics who also have little trust in institutions are most associated with endorsement of ideologically consistent conspiracy theories: “Highly knowledgeable conservatives are more likely to engage in ideologically motivated endorsement, especially if they believe that the world is an untrustworthy place.”
  • Conservatives and liberals knowledgeable about politics are less likely than their unknowledgeable counterparts to endorse incongruent conspiracies – for example, a liberal is less likely to endorse the theory that President Obama was not born in the United States.
  • For liberals, greater knowledge about politics and greater trust in institutions both appear to decrease their tendency to endorse conspiracy theories.
https://journalistsresource.org/stud...owledge-trust/

Notice that :“Highly knowledgeable conservatives are more likely to engage in ideologically motivated endorsement, especially if they believe that the world is an untrustworthy place.”

Look man, I'm not stupid, okay. I can see that your point is to draw a parallel between conspiracy theorists and those on the right. You imply brain growths are a cause and thereby combine a poisoning the well fallacy with a hasty generalization fallacy and throw in a little guilt by association fallacy for flavor.

You'll only "convince" the idiots on your own side of the isle with this blather.

Clete
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Look man, I'm not stupid, okay.

Never thought you were. The only reason I'm continuing this, is that I think you're smarter than average.

I can see that your point is to draw a parallel between conspiracy theorists and those on the right.

Or in the case of Antifa, (as I pointed out) the left. There are certainly leftists with similar fixations, but not as many of them, based on research. A correlation coefficient of around 7 is pretty good, but still allows lots of exceptions.

You imply brain growths are a cause

I pointed out that no one has shown if the correlation is due to causation or if both factors are related to something else. And keep in mind, I also pointed out that a different sort of neuroanatomical variation could lead one to ignore a threat that is real. And I pointed out that both of those variations can have adaptive value for survival. And the ACG and amygdala are not "growths"; they are essential parts of human brains, both with useful functions. They aren't tumors.

and thereby combine a poisoning the well fallacy with a hasty generalization fallacy and throw in a little guilt by association fallacy for flavor.

If so, I'm messing it up by having repeatedly mentioned the above, I would think.

You'll only "convince" the idiots on your own side of the isle with this blather.

It's possible all that research is just a huge conspiracy to slander conservatives. But it seems odd that it also shows leftists to have their own sort of neuroanatomical differences that predict their behavior, which at least some times, is not realistic.

And of the top ten crazy conspiracy theories mentioned here:
https://www.elitedaily.com/life/cult...people-believe

At least two of them have been promoted at least as often by liberals as by conservatives. Which fits the very good but not perfect correlation mentioned earlier.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Never thought you were. The only reason I'm continuing this, is that I think you're smarter than average.



Or in the case of Antifa, (as I pointed out) the left. There are certainly leftists with similar fixations, but not as many of them, based on research. A correlation coefficient of around 7 is pretty good, but still allows lots of exceptions.



I pointed out that no one has shown if the correlation is due to causation or if both factors are related to something else. And keep in mind, I also pointed out that a different sort of neuroanatomical variation could lead one to ignore a threat that is real. And I pointed out that both of those variations can have adaptive value for survival. And the ACG and amygdala are not "growths"; they are essential parts of human brains, both with useful functions. They aren't tumors.



If so, I'm messing it up by having repeatedly mentioned the above, I would think.



It's possible all that research is just a huge conspiracy to slander conservatives. But it seems odd that it also shows leftists to have their own sort of neuroanatomical differences that predict their behavior, which at least some times, is not realistic.

And of the top ten crazy conspiracy theories mentioned here:
https://www.elitedaily.com/life/cult...people-believe

At least two of them have been promoted at least as often by liberals as by conservatives. Which fits the very good but not perfect correlation mentioned earlier.

So why bring up enlarged areas of the brain in a thread about, "Bad Thinkers; Why do some people believe conspiracy theories?" if not to imply a causal relationship, especially when such brain growth primarily exists in those who you believe are "Bad Thinkers"?

What could possibly have been your point? If the growth occurs in both the right and the left and in those who believe in conspiracy theories then why bring it up at all? You might just as well have pointed out that all three groups have eyes in their heads.

There is no other possible point to even bringing it up except to imply a causal relationship as well as to try and engender the emotional equivalent of "Ick! I don't want any brain growths! Especially if it means I have something in common with either those Neanderthals on the right or those jack booted fascists who wear black masks and tear up college campuses!"

You backed off the clear implication (rightly so) because I pointed out that correlation does not imply causation but the point is that you had to back off from that point and want to pretend now like you never intended to make it.


The fact of the matter is that it is those on the left who cannot think clearly; who refuse to learn the lessons of history, who want to lord power over others whom they believe to be "bad thinkers" and who make emotional decisions rather than rational ones. It is those on the right who understand that God does not micromanage your life and that government shouldn't either; that if a man is hungry, he is blessed because his own body is motivating him to work; that it should be done to the criminal as he did (or sought to do) to his neighbor; that what grows inside a mother's womb is a human being and that private property rights are an extension of one's right to live.

Clete
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
So why bring up enlarged areas of the brain in a thread about, "Bad Thinkers; Why do some people believe conspiracy theories?" if not to imply a causal relationship, especially when such brain growth primarily exists in those who you believe are "Bad Thinkers"?

Because it turns out, that such a bit of neuroanatomy actually is a pretty good predictor of conspiracy buffs.

What could possibly have been your point?

It was interesting that such a minor detail of the brain could be such a great predictor of one's likelihood of buying into conspiracy theories. As I said, it appears that Neville Chamberlain was inclined to the opposite error, not perceiving the danger Hitler presented to the world. And just because one tends to buy into such theories does not necessarily mean that they are always wrong.

The case of James Forrestal is instructive. The first Secretary of Defense, Forrestal, became convinced that dangerous agents of a foreign power were shadowing his every move. He was hospitalized as he became increasingly irrational. He was recognized as being a danger to himself, but due to his position in government, was not restrained or guarded. He fell from a 16 story window to his death while in the hospital.

It turns out that Israel, suspecting that he might make some agreement with the Arab states, did indeed have agents shadowing him. He was mentally ill, but he wasn't wrong. Keep in mind, Forrestal's condition is not at all like that of most conspiracy buffs. They aren't crazy, they just tend to be more inclined to see conspiracies where others do not. And that, as you know, is nicely predicted by a particular detail of neuroanatomy.

If the growth occurs in both the right and the left

As I said, it's a very good predictor, but not a perfect one. Anatomy is not necessarily destiny.

then why bring it up at all?

Because it's interesting to me, as a person who believes that mental qualities like intelligence and attitudes are more strongly influenced by environment than by genes, that such a thing could be.

You might just as well have pointed out that all three groups have eyes in their heads.

Rather, it would be like noting that one group was much more likely than the other group to have acute vision, and that there was a significant anatomical correlation for it.

There is no other possible point to even bringing it up except to imply a causal relationship as well as to try and engender the emotional equivalent of "Ick! I don't want any brain growths!

Remember, these are not abnomalities. They are just normal variations of things we all have. Suppose we found that people with significantly larger muscle mass were quite likely to be liberal, and those who could run faster than normal were quite likely to be conservative. It's like that.

Especially if it means I have something in common with either those Neanderthals on the right or those jack booted fascists who wear black masks and tear up college campuses!

If you're conservative and you don't buy into some of those whacked-out theories,(as a great many conservatives do not) it could mean a number of things.
  • You're an outlier, who doesn't have an enlarged amygdala
  • You're a rationalist, who depends less on emotion and more on reason
  • Your upbringing was very effective, and whatever your anatomical characteristics, that was the deciding factor.
  • Any number of other possibilities.
You backed off the clear implication (rightly so) because I pointed out that correlation does not imply causation

I rejected your implication, Remember, it's not what I said. It was what you said. Remember, I pointed out that this anatomical difference was a good predictor, not that there was a causation. And that's mathematically sound; you can have very good predictors, with not apparent causation. You shot down a claim I never made.

but the point is that you had to back off from that point

My point is now, exactly what it was. That these details of neuroanatomy are very good predictors of conservative or liberal outlook, even better than family background. And I showed you that conservatives are indeed more inclined to conspiracy theories than liberals are.

and want to pretend now like you never intended to make it.

You've made a claim for me, and want me to take ownership.

The fact of the matter is that it is those on the left who cannot think clearly;

I don't think you're getting what this data suggests: conspiracy buffs are not necessarily stupid or confused. That was the point of the research I cited. They tend to be more receptive to conspiracy theories. And it's a very good correlation, not a perfect one. So for example, in that list of weird theories, there are at least two that are often accepted by leftists.

who refuse to learn the lessons of history, who want to lord power over others whom they believe to be "bad thinkers" and who make emotional decisions rather than rational ones.

Perhaps one who thinks of himself as a "very stable genius." Such people might want to reduce the number of citizens who vote. That was an issue as far back as Rome when the Optimates decried the influence of the Populares in government. We see that constantly, in once scheme or another to Gerrymander voting, or to find ways to discourage voting by whoever the "good people" fear.

But of course, this isn't the point of the discussion.

It is those on the right who understand that God does not micromanage your life and that government shouldn't either

You're adding things to the discussion again.

; that it should be done to the criminal as he did (or sought to do) to his neighbor;

Also another issue, but what you said, is not what Jesus said.

that what grows inside a mother's womb is a human being and that private property rights are an extension of one's right to live.

I would not accept the idea that the unborn are private property. But again, our differences on that are not what this discussion is about.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I would not accept the idea that the unborn are private property. But again, our differences on that are not what this discussion is about.

See what I mean? You lefties can't think past your own noses. I didn't say anything about the unborn being private property.

You want to draw a rough moral equivalence to those on the right and conspiracy theorists and attempt to use brain growths and some sort of bridge between the two because you are neither on the right nor a conspiracy theorists and you hope to God that you don't have any anomalous brain growths.

I can't really tell for sure whether you honestly don't intend to be making such a spurious point or whether you've been caught and are just basically trying to cover your tracks. Either way, it really doesn't cast you in the most favorable light. My recommendation is for you to drop it because unless you intend to imply a causal relationship, whether brain growths are predictors of a certain way of thinking or not is entirely irrelevant to any discussion about "Why do some people believe conspiracy theories?".

In fact, I doubt that the question "why" is even an answerable question. A more pertinent question would be "HOW do people who believe conspiracy theories think?". Then look at how people on the left think vs. how people on the right think and then you'd have a real basis for comparison between who's thinking is more or less similar to conspiracy theorists.

My experience with conspiracy theorists and with leftists tells me that they are both primarily emotionally based and aggressively irrational. Both aren't nearly so concerned with the truth as they are with whatever version of the "facts" suits their preconceived notions about reality and the way the world works (or should work). Neither seem to have any idea what confirmation bias even is, never mind take any steps to detect and avoid it. Neither make any attempt whatsoever to have an over arching, big picture worldview that serves to unify their beliefs about epistemology, cosmology, ethics and politics. They just move through life like a really intelligent cow, following whichever herd they've found that seems to fulfill their need to be accepted, respected, trusted, or in some other way feel significant, if not special. As a result their beliefs are incohesive and indefensible in any rational manner. Instead, when a leftist or conspiracy theorist gets cornered by sound reason, they change the subject, ignore the argument and simply repeat themselves or get causelessly and overly emotional or some combination thereof.

Clete
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian disagrees:
I would not accept the idea that the unborn are private property. But again, our differences on that are not what this discussion is about.

See what I mean? You lefties can't think past your own noses. I didn't say anything about the unborn being private property.

If you didn't, why did you even mention private property as part of it? For that matter, why did you even bring up the unborn when this thread is about something else.?

You want to draw a rough moral equivalence to those on the right and conspiracy theorists

No. I don't see it as a moral issue at all. I'm merely noting the correlation between conservatism and conspiracy theories.

and attempt to use brain growths

They aren't "growths." We all have them, albeit of different sizes.

and some sort of bridge between the two because you are neither on the right nor a conspiracy theorists and you hope to God that you don't have any anomalous brain growths.

They aren't "anomalous brain growths."

I can't really tell for sure whether you honestly don't intend to be making such a spurious point or whether you've been caught and are just basically trying to cover your tracks.

Maybe you should just go with what I've written, and deal with that. It would save you a lot of difficulty.

My recommendation is for you to drop it because unless you intend to imply a causal relationship, whether brain growths are predictors of a certain way of thinking or not is entirely irrelevant to any discussion about "Why do some people believe conspiracy theories?".

I thought you were straight on that. They aren't "brain growths", and they are good predictors, not evidence of causal relationships. Go back to the beginning. I showed quite early in the thread.

In fact, I doubt that the question "why" is even an answerable question.

Maybe so. The point still remains; it's a very good predictor.

A more pertinent question would be "HOW do people who believe conspiracy theories think?".


That's a different question, but there is some research on it:
It would be tempting to dismiss those who believe such bizarre ideas as mentally ill. But in reality, conspiracy beliefs such as Qanon are neither pathological nor novel. Putting aside the fact that some conspiracy theories turn out to be true (e.g., Watergate is arguably an example of a real conspiracy), even fact-free conspiracy theories can be followed by people who otherwise behave relatively normally.

Widespread support for conspiracy theories is also not simply a symptom of our modern digital society. In the dark ages, witch hunts were based on the belief that young women gathered in the woods to conspire with the devil, and many traditional societies
still accuse enemy tribes of sorcery to harm or control them. The fear that evil forces conspire to hurt good people is deeply rooted in the human psyche.

I have
studied the psychological motivators of conspiracy beliefs for many years. Based on my research, I believe there are three main reasons why people believe in theories like Qanon. First, accepting one conspiracy theory as true makes it much easier to believe in other theories. Studies from the mid-1990s found that the single best predictor of conspiracy thinking is the belief in a different conspiracy theory.

In a recent study conducted by myself, Karen Douglas and Clara De Inocencio, we further investigated why this could be the case. Our conclusion? Conspiracy theories reinforce a belief that nothing in the world happens through coincidence. This refusal to recognize the role of chance leads people to develop a worldview in which
hostile and secret conspiracies permeate all layers of society.

Feelings of anxiety and uncertainty also help fuel conspiracy theories. Such emotions function as a psychological warning signal, leading people to try and make sense of societal events that frighten them. This helps to explain the widespread (and ongoing) speculation that followed impactful events such as 9/11 or the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Together with Nils Jostmann and Michele Acker, we found that feelings of uncertainty, coupled with the feeling that your life is not fully in your control anymore, increases conspiracy thinking. Studies by others researchers confirm that emotions reflecting uncertainty — such as fear or worry — can increase conspiracy beliefs.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...-people-believe-bizarre-conspiracy-ncna900171
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Barbarian disagrees:
I would not accept the idea that the unborn are private property. But again, our differences on that are not what this discussion is about.

If you didn't, why did you even mention private property as part of it? For that matter, why did you even bring up the unborn when this thread is about something else.?
Really? It wasn't obvious that I was simply listing a wide ranging set of issues that the left doesn't get or even bother to think through?

After rereading my post, I simply don't believe you. It couldn't have been clearer what I was doing.

No. I don't see it as a moral issue at all. I'm merely noting the correlation between conservatism and conspiracy theories.
From Wikipedia...

Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn't as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.​

That's entirely what you are doing - period.

They aren't "growths." We all have them, albeit of different sizes.
If one region of the brain has grown or not grown in one brain relative to another, it is perfectly valid to refer to the differences in general terms such as "brain growths" because that's what has happened - someone's brain has grown. I'm not implying tumors. We're talking about areas of the brain that have grown, thus "brain growths".

They aren't "anomalous brain growths."
Of course they are! If someone scans a hundred brains of people who live in San Fransisco and then they scan mine, chances are good that my brain might show what the scientist would refer to as "anomalous growths" because the parts of the brain responsible for rational thought are going to have received far more activity and blood in my brain than in the average San Franciscan's brain. As a result the left frontal lobe of my brain is going to have far more synaptic connections and perhaps other "growths" while the San Franciscan's brain will show similar "growth" in whichever part of their brain that is responsible for being a whiny, sniveling, homo loving, baby murderers (a.k.a. leftists).

Maybe you should just go with what I've written, and deal with that. It would save you a lot of difficulty.

I thought you were straight on that. They aren't "brain growths", and they are good predictors, not evidence of causal relationships. Go back to the beginning. I showed quite early in the thread.
I've responded directly to your own words. As I said before, there is no other possible point you could be making in a thread with the title, "Bad Thinkers; Why do some people believe conspiracy theories?"

If you had brought it up in some other context, it would be easier to believe that you aren't making such an equivocation but there isn't any other rational possibility here.

Maybe so. The point still remains; it's a very good predictor.
So what?

That's the point!

So what?

Who cares if their good predictors in a discussion about, "Bad Thinkers; Why do some people believe conspiracy theories?", unless you are suggesting that these growths are causal or at the very least have a common cause? Either way, the point still has to be related to you attempting to draw some sort of equivalence between those on the right and conspiracy theorists, the bigger point of which would be to give everyone an extra reason to dislike those on the right because their obviously just as crazy as conspiracy theorists and their aberrant brains are the proof.

You fools on the left tried a similar tactic trying to "prove" that homos are born sexually perverted. The science was faulty then (severely so) and the logic was even worse and remains so now.

That's a different question, but there is some research on it:
It would be tempting to dismiss those who believe such bizarre ideas as mentally ill. But in reality, conspiracy beliefs such as Qanon are neither pathological nor novel. Putting aside the fact that some conspiracy theories turn out to be true (e.g., Watergate is arguably an example of a real conspiracy), even fact-free conspiracy theories can be followed by people who otherwise behave relatively normally.

Widespread support for conspiracy theories is also not simply a symptom of our modern digital society. In the dark ages, witch hunts were based on the belief that young women gathered in the woods to conspire with the devil, and many traditional societies
still accuse enemy tribes of sorcery to harm or control them. The fear that evil forces conspire to hurt good people is deeply rooted in the human psyche.

I have
studied the psychological motivators of conspiracy beliefs for many years. Based on my research, I believe there are three main reasons why people believe in theories like Qanon. First, accepting one conspiracy theory as true makes it much easier to believe in other theories. Studies from the mid-1990s found that the single best predictor of conspiracy thinking is the belief in a different conspiracy theory.

In a recent study conducted by myself, Karen Douglas and Clara De Inocencio, we further investigated why this could be the case. Our conclusion? Conspiracy theories reinforce a belief that nothing in the world happens through coincidence. This refusal to recognize the role of chance leads people to develop a worldview in which
hostile and secret conspiracies permeate all layers of society.

Feelings of anxiety and uncertainty also help fuel conspiracy theories. Such emotions function as a psychological warning signal, leading people to try and make sense of societal events that frighten them. This helps to explain the widespread (and ongoing) speculation that followed impactful events such as 9/11 or the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Together with Nils Jostmann and Michele Acker, we found that feelings of uncertainty, coupled with the feeling that your life is not fully in your control anymore, increases conspiracy thinking. Studies by others researchers confirm that emotions reflecting uncertainty — such as fear or worry — can increase conspiracy beliefs.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...-people-believe-bizarre-conspiracy-ncna900171
Pretty sure that whole thing is all about WHY, not How.

That article is a great example of how this thread should have gone. Conspiratorial thinking is psychologically/emotionally motivated. It isn't rational. As such it has far more in common with both how and why the left thinks the way it does.

Clete
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
The point still remains; it's a very good predictor.


no, it isn't (see below)

what it is is an unexplained correlation

as is the correlation between Japanese passenger cars sold in the US and Suicides by crashing of motor vehicle

Q834MeGh.jpg
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Now, if I repeatedly cited that correlation and called it "a good predictor", you'd be justified in suspecting I was trying to smear Japanese cars
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
The point still remains; it's a very good predictor.


only if you're ignorant of the language of statistics:


A predictor variable explains changes in the response. Typically, you want to determine how changes in one or more predictors are associated with changes in the response. For example, in a plant growth study, the predictors might be the amount of fertilizer applied, the soil moisture, and the amount of sunlight.

https://statisticsbyjim.com/glossary/predictor-variables/

 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Really? It wasn't obvious that I was simply listing a wide ranging set of issues that the left doesn't get or even bother to think through?

After rereading my post, I simply don't believe you. It couldn't have been clearer what I was doing.


From Wikipedia...
Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn't as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.​


That's entirely what you are doing - period.

I brought up those extraneous issues? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out, you did. You were seeking to draw comparisons between different and unrelated things. Whether you were trying to make the point that one was as bad as the other or simply to draw attention to an unrelated issue, really isn't the point, is it?


If one region of the brain has grown or not grown in one brain relative to another, it is perfectly valid to refer to the differences in general terms such as "brain growths"

No. That word refers to neoplasms, not normal brain structures.

Do a search for "brain growths" and see what you get.
Brain tumor - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic

Search domain www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/brain-tumor/symptoms-causes/syc-20350084
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/brain-tumor/symptoms-causes/syc-20350084

In adults, secondary brain tumors are far more common than are primary brain tumors. Any cancer can spread to the brain, but common types include: Breast cancer; Colon cancer; Kidney cancer; Lung cancer; Melanoma; Risk factors. In most people with primary brain tumors, the cause of the tumor is not clear.


Brain Tumors: Could You Have One? Symptoms, Warning Signs ...

Search domain www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/brain-tumors-in-adults
https://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/brain-tumors-in-adults

The second most common type of adult brain tumors are meningeal tumors. These form in the meninges, the thin layer of tissue that covers the brain and spinal cord.


Brain tumor - Wikipedia

Search domain en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_tumor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_tumor

A brain tumor occurs when abnormal cells form within the brain. There are two main types of tumors: cancerous (malignant) tumors and benign (non-cancerous) tumors. Cancerous tumors can be divided into primary tumors, which start within the brain, and secondary tumors, which have spread from elsewhere, known as brain me



I'm not implying tumors.

If you don't use words as they are normally used, you will be always misunderstood...

Who cares if their good predictors in a discussion about, "Bad Thinkers; Why do some people believe conspiracy theories?"

The people doing the research. Other researchers citing it in their own studies of neuroscience. People like that

unless you are suggesting that these growths are causal or at the very least have a common cause?

Remember, correlation isn't causation. But It's still a good predictor.

Either way, the point still has to be related to you attempting to draw some sort of equivalence between those on the right and conspiracy theorists,

Scientific research shows only that they are well-correlated. That's not equivalence, and no one here, AFAIK, suggested it is.

the bigger point of which would be to give everyone an extra reason to dislike those on the right because their obviously just as crazy as conspiracy theorists and their aberrant brains are the proof.

I cited research that showed such people aren't usually crazy. So that's out, too.

You fools on the left tried a similar tactic trying to "prove" that homos are born sexually perverted.

Bringing up an unrelated matter and claiming it's similar is the "moral equivalence" fallacy, right?
[temporary digression]If it's any consolation, homosexuality doesn't seem to be genetic. At this time, the best indication is that maternal hormones just before birth has much to do with it. But humans are pretty plastic in behavior, and it's likely only a tendency. The fact that homosexuality is common in all cultures, but quite widespread in certain ones, suggests that environment is more important at least for the manifestation of homosexuality.[/temporary digression]

. Conspiratorial thinking is psychologically/emotionally motivated. It isn't rational.

Not unless there really is a conspiracy. Of course, one can be like James Forrestal, both being followed, and being pathologically paranoid.

As such it has far more in common with both how and why the left thinks the way it does.

Research indicates otherwise. As per research I cited earlier.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I brought up those extraneous issues? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out, you did. You were seeking to draw comparisons between different and unrelated things. Whether you were trying to make the point that one was as bad as the other or simply to draw attention to an unrelated issue, really isn't the point, is it?




No. That word refers to neoplasms, not normal brain structures.

Do a search for "brain growths" and see what you get.
Brain tumor - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic

Search domain www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/brain-tumor/symptoms-causes/syc-20350084
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/brain-tumor/symptoms-causes/syc-20350084

In adults, secondary brain tumors are far more common than are primary brain tumors. Any cancer can spread to the brain, but common types include: Breast cancer; Colon cancer; Kidney cancer; Lung cancer; Melanoma; Risk factors. In most people with primary brain tumors, the cause of the tumor is not clear.


Brain Tumors: Could You Have One? Symptoms, Warning Signs ...

Search domain www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/brain-tumors-in-adults
https://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/brain-tumors-in-adults

The second most common type of adult brain tumors are meningeal tumors. These form in the meninges, the thin layer of tissue that covers the brain and spinal cord.


Brain tumor - Wikipedia

Search domain en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_tumor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_tumor

A brain tumor occurs when abnormal cells form within the brain. There are two main types of tumors: cancerous (malignant) tumors and benign (non-cancerous) tumors. Cancerous tumors can be divided into primary tumors, which start within the brain, and secondary tumors, which have spread from elsewhere, known as brain me





If you don't use words as they are normally used, you will be always misunderstood...



The people doing the research. Other researchers citing it in their own studies of neuroscience. People like that



Remember, correlation isn't causation. But It's still a good predictor.



Scientific research shows only that they are well-correlated. That's not equivalence, and no one here, AFAIK, suggested it is.



I cited research that showed such people aren't usually crazy. So that's out, too.



Bringing up an unrelated matter and claiming it's similar is the "moral equivalence" fallacy, right?
[temporary digression]If it's any consolation, homosexuality doesn't seem to be genetic. At this time, the best indication is that maternal hormones just before birth has much to do with it. But humans are pretty plastic in behavior, and it's likely only a tendency. The fact that homosexuality is common in all cultures, but quite widespread in certain ones, suggests that environment is more important at least for the manifestation of homosexuality.[/temporary digression]



Not unless there really is a conspiracy. Of course, one can be like James Forrestal, both being followed, and being pathologically paranoid.



Research indicates otherwise. As per research I cited earlier.

That entire post was a waste of time.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I was hoping not, but I'm a very patient guy. And an optimist. Maybe it takes some time. Worth a try.

All you did was basically to repeat yourself and brought the discussion not one inch closer to being about why some people are bad thinkers and/or believe in conspiracy theories.

I'm bored.
 
Top