Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories
144 views
Skip to first unread message
Tom Reedy
May 21, 2013, 7:34:41 PM5/21/13
to
Arthur Neuendorffer
May 21, 2013, 8:23:11 PM5/21/13
to
Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-in...
<<In 2010, Swami and a co-author summarized this research in The
Psychologist, a scientific journal. They found, perhaps surprisingly,
that believers are more likely to be cynical about the world in
general and politics in particular.
In these moments of powerlessness and uncertainty, a part of the brain
called the amygdala kicks into action. Paul Whalen, a scientist at
Dartmouth College who studies the amygdala, says it doesn’t exactly do
anything on its own. Instead, the amygdala jump-starts the rest of the
brain into analytical overdrive — prompting repeated reassessments of
information in an attempt to create a coherent and understandable
narrative, to understand what just happened, what threats still exist
and what should be done now.
Swami’s work has also turned up a correlation between conspiracy
theorizing and strong support of democratic principles. But this isn’t
quite so strange if you consider the context. Kathryn Olmsted, a
historian at the University of California, Davis, says that conspiracy
theories wouldn’t exist in a world in which real conspiracies don’t
exist. And those conspiracies — Watergate or the Iran-contra Affair
[or the Stratford conspiracy] — often involve manipulating and
circumventing the democratic [or the true scholastic] process.>>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-in...
<<In 2010, Swami and a co-author summarized this research in The
Psychologist, a scientific journal. They found, perhaps surprisingly,
that believers are more likely to be cynical about the world in
general and politics in particular.
In these moments of powerlessness and uncertainty, a part of the brain
called the amygdala kicks into action. Paul Whalen, a scientist at
Dartmouth College who studies the amygdala, says it doesn’t exactly do
anything on its own. Instead, the amygdala jump-starts the rest of the
brain into analytical overdrive — prompting repeated reassessments of
information in an attempt to create a coherent and understandable
narrative, to understand what just happened, what threats still exist
and what should be done now.
Swami’s work has also turned up a correlation between conspiracy
theorizing and strong support of democratic principles. But this isn’t
quite so strange if you consider the context. Kathryn Olmsted, a
historian at the University of California, Davis, says that conspiracy
theories wouldn’t exist in a world in which real conspiracies don’t
exist. And those conspiracies — Watergate or the Iran-contra Affair
[or the Stratford conspiracy] — often involve manipulating and
circumventing the democratic [or the true scholastic] process.>>
book...@yahoo.com
May 22, 2013, 3:49:23 AM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:34:41 -0700 (PDT), Tom Reedy
<tom....@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&
My attempt to understand conspiracy theory is different than assuming
it's a "response to a single event" or "an expression of an
overarching world view." That disappoints by pretending the false
logic of "either-or," as if you can find answers by elementary school
arithmetic and accept one by eliminating the other.
Probably I would like to view "conspiracy theory" as a function of the
bran that 1) tries to deal with the unknown, and 2) wants to identify
with a value system that one can identify with in satisfying ways. So
I can imagine how a primitive might accept a "conspiracy"-like
mind-set rooted in myth and legend. This kind of thing is useful in
understanding how/why homo sapiens sapiens developed culture,
including literature, religion, politics, etc..
<tom....@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&
My attempt to understand conspiracy theory is different than assuming
it's a "response to a single event" or "an expression of an
overarching world view." That disappoints by pretending the false
logic of "either-or," as if you can find answers by elementary school
arithmetic and accept one by eliminating the other.
Probably I would like to view "conspiracy theory" as a function of the
bran that 1) tries to deal with the unknown, and 2) wants to identify
with a value system that one can identify with in satisfying ways. So
I can imagine how a primitive might accept a "conspiracy"-like
mind-set rooted in myth and legend. This kind of thing is useful in
understanding how/why homo sapiens sapiens developed culture,
including literature, religion, politics, etc..
Jim F.
May 22, 2013, 4:02:51 AM5/22/13
to
The true battlefield is in Shakespeare's text, little room can be played
there, e.g. Portia's Lottery
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/M0VtETkjqsM
"I know it begins with some other letter."
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/mrUtloP1igE
Peddler, Cardmaker, Bear-hear and Tinker.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/gTN9DgOSmWg
The debate mixes evidence _from_ Shakespeare and _to_ Shakespeare.
Evidence-to shows William Shakespeare is a poet or front man.
The only evidence from Shakespeare as a poet is works under his name.
These works are for staging and reading for different targets. Mixing
the two causes another confusion.
Scholars should focus on difficult lines, not common things again and
again. Those difficult lines honor Shakespeare more when solved.
there, e.g. Portia's Lottery
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/M0VtETkjqsM
"I know it begins with some other letter."
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/mrUtloP1igE
Peddler, Cardmaker, Bear-hear and Tinker.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/gTN9DgOSmWg
The debate mixes evidence _from_ Shakespeare and _to_ Shakespeare.
Evidence-to shows William Shakespeare is a poet or front man.
The only evidence from Shakespeare as a poet is works under his name.
These works are for staging and reading for different targets. Mixing
the two causes another confusion.
Scholars should focus on difficult lines, not common things again and
again. Those difficult lines honor Shakespeare more when solved.
Sneaky O. Possum
May 22, 2013, 1:41:49 PM5/22/13
to
Tom Reedy <tom....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2442ea6a-4a1d-49be...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into
> -conspiracy-theories.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&
"Consider this: 63 percent of registered American voters believe in at
least one political conspiracy theory, according to a recent poll
conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University."
That's misleading. The poll in question (it's on the Web at
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/outthere/) asked respondents about four
specific beliefs: "President Bush's supporters committed significant
voter fraud in order to win Ohio in 2004," "President Obama's supporters
committed significant voter fraud in the 2012 presidential election,"
"President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened," and
"President Obama is hiding important information about his background
and early life."
The phrasing on the two voter fraud questions is vague enough to allow
for non-conspiracist interpretations - neither question indicates that
the candidate knew about the fraud, and the Obama question doesn't even
indicate that the fraud helped Obama win, just that it was
"significant". The phrasing on the question about Obama's background is
similarly vague: "President Obama is hiding important information about
his background and early life" covers a lot of ground - if one thinks
his failure to release his college transcripts counts as "hiding
important information about his background," one will put that in the
"probably true" category, but in fact Obama has failed to release his
college transcripts.
To take an example more relevant to anti-Stratfordianism, if I were
asked to classify the statement "The Privy Council hid important
information about the circumstances of Christopher Marlowe's death," I'd
say it was probably true, but anyone who inferred that I also thought it
likely that there was a conspiracy to murder Marlowe or fake his death
would be gravely mistaken.
Only the statement about Bush having advance knowledge of the 9/11
attacks really counts as a conspiracy theory, and as it happens, that
one had the highest percentage of "Probably Not True" responses, 56%.
(Note that the poll didn't offer a "Definitely True" or "Definitely Not
True" option.)
--
S.O.P.
news:2442ea6a-4a1d-49be...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into
> -conspiracy-theories.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&
"Consider this: 63 percent of registered American voters believe in at
least one political conspiracy theory, according to a recent poll
conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University."
That's misleading. The poll in question (it's on the Web at
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/outthere/) asked respondents about four
specific beliefs: "President Bush's supporters committed significant
voter fraud in order to win Ohio in 2004," "President Obama's supporters
committed significant voter fraud in the 2012 presidential election,"
"President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened," and
"President Obama is hiding important information about his background
and early life."
The phrasing on the two voter fraud questions is vague enough to allow
for non-conspiracist interpretations - neither question indicates that
the candidate knew about the fraud, and the Obama question doesn't even
indicate that the fraud helped Obama win, just that it was
"significant". The phrasing on the question about Obama's background is
similarly vague: "President Obama is hiding important information about
his background and early life" covers a lot of ground - if one thinks
his failure to release his college transcripts counts as "hiding
important information about his background," one will put that in the
"probably true" category, but in fact Obama has failed to release his
college transcripts.
To take an example more relevant to anti-Stratfordianism, if I were
asked to classify the statement "The Privy Council hid important
information about the circumstances of Christopher Marlowe's death," I'd
say it was probably true, but anyone who inferred that I also thought it
likely that there was a conspiracy to murder Marlowe or fake his death
would be gravely mistaken.
Only the statement about Bush having advance knowledge of the 9/11
attacks really counts as a conspiracy theory, and as it happens, that
one had the highest percentage of "Probably Not True" responses, 56%.
(Note that the poll didn't offer a "Definitely True" or "Definitely Not
True" option.)
--
S.O.P.
Sneaky O. Possum
May 22, 2013, 2:30:21 PM5/22/13
to
Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0899843d-e8d1-4042...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-in.
>> ..
[snip]
> [or the Stratford conspiracy] - often involve manipulating and
possible for beliefs about things to exist in a world where real
instances of those things cannot be shown to exist. One need only review
the literature on the Lost Continent of Atlantis to see how people have
persisted in believing that there must have been such a place, despite
the general lack of evidence for sunken continents that once bore
advanced civilisations.
The desire to believe in such continents led others to take a
19th-century hypothetical explanation for the distribution of lemur
fossils as the basis for fantasies about the great lost civilisation of
Lemuria. (The fact that the hypothesis about lemur distribution was
superseded by the development of Plate Tectonics theory has not led the
true believers to abandon thoughts of someday communing with the
Lemurians.)
Not content with two impossible lost continents, Augustus Le Plongeon
went on to invent a third, "Mu," based on a spurious translation of a
Mayan almanac - and the Lost Continent of Mu attracted the interest of
no less than Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who thought James Churchward's books
on the subject provided proof "that the Turks had brought civilization
to the Americas as well as to the Old World continents" (Hanioglu,
/Ataturk: An Intellectual Biography/, 178).
Sunken continental civilisations are by no means the only example of things
believed in but never seen: I trust that even Ms Olmsted would blink at the
claim that belief in the Loch Ness Monster derives from the existence of
actual lake monsters.
--
S.O.P.
news:0899843d-e8d1-4042...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-in.
>> ..
> Swami's work has also turned up a correlation between conspiracy
> theorizing and strong support of democratic principles. But this isn't
> quite so strange if you consider the context. Kathryn Olmsted, a
> historian at the University of California, Davis, says that conspiracy
> theories wouldn't exist in a world in which real conspiracies don't
> exist. And those conspiracies - Watergate or the Iran-contra Affair
> theorizing and strong support of democratic principles. But this isn't
> quite so strange if you consider the context. Kathryn Olmsted, a
> historian at the University of California, Davis, says that conspiracy
> theories wouldn't exist in a world in which real conspiracies don't
> [or the Stratford conspiracy] - often involve manipulating and
> circumventing the democratic [or the true scholastic] process.>>
The truth of Ms Olmsted's assertion is not self-evident. It is perfectly
possible for beliefs about things to exist in a world where real
instances of those things cannot be shown to exist. One need only review
the literature on the Lost Continent of Atlantis to see how people have
persisted in believing that there must have been such a place, despite
the general lack of evidence for sunken continents that once bore
advanced civilisations.
The desire to believe in such continents led others to take a
19th-century hypothetical explanation for the distribution of lemur
fossils as the basis for fantasies about the great lost civilisation of
Lemuria. (The fact that the hypothesis about lemur distribution was
superseded by the development of Plate Tectonics theory has not led the
true believers to abandon thoughts of someday communing with the
Lemurians.)
Not content with two impossible lost continents, Augustus Le Plongeon
went on to invent a third, "Mu," based on a spurious translation of a
Mayan almanac - and the Lost Continent of Mu attracted the interest of
no less than Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who thought James Churchward's books
on the subject provided proof "that the Turks had brought civilization
to the Americas as well as to the Old World continents" (Hanioglu,
/Ataturk: An Intellectual Biography/, 178).
Sunken continental civilisations are by no means the only example of things
believed in but never seen: I trust that even Ms Olmsted would blink at the
claim that belief in the Loch Ness Monster derives from the existence of
actual lake monsters.
--
S.O.P.
marco
May 22, 2013, 3:46:04 PM5/22/13
to
marco
Jun 19, 2013, 3:55:25 PM6/19/13
to
neon...@gmail.com
Jun 20, 2013, 8:11:46 AM6/20/13
to
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:02:51 AM UTC-7, Jim F. wrote:
> The true battlefield is in Shakespeare's text, little room can be played
>
> there, e.g. Portia's Lottery
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/M0VtETkjqsM
>
> Elizabeth writes: I think you're closing in on the answer,
> The true battlefield is in Shakespeare's text, little room can be played
>
> there, e.g. Portia's Lottery
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/M0VtETkjqsM
>
>
> Bacon WAS Shakespeare from the time he left Cambridge
>
> at age twelve or thirteen, he identified with Athene all his
>
> life. I don't know if the Stratford Broker was being paid
>
> off to front for Bacon but it certainly is a possibility, even
>
> more, they were both living in the Blackfriars. I've always
>
> rejected theories along these lines. I'll have to look up
>
> the dates when Bacon, Jonson and Shakespeare left
>
> Blackfriars.
>
> "I know it begins with some other letter."
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/mrUtloP1igE
>
>
>
> Peddler, Cardmaker, Bear-hear and Tinker.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/gTN9DgOSmWg
>
>
>
> The debate mixes evidence _from_ Shakespeare and _to_ Shakespeare.
>
> Evidence-to shows William Shakespeare is a poet or front man.
>
> The only evidence from Shakespeare as a poet is works under his name.
>
> These works are for staging and reading for different targets. Mixing
>
> the two causes another confusion.
>
>
>
> Scholars should focus on difficult lines, not common things again and
>
> again. Those difficult lines honor Shakespeare more when solved.
>
> Can't argue with the above, Elizabeth
> "I know it begins with some other letter."
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/mrUtloP1igE
>
>
>
> Peddler, Cardmaker, Bear-hear and Tinker.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/gTN9DgOSmWg
>
>
>
> The debate mixes evidence _from_ Shakespeare and _to_ Shakespeare.
>
> Evidence-to shows William Shakespeare is a poet or front man.
>
> The only evidence from Shakespeare as a poet is works under his name.
>
> These works are for staging and reading for different targets. Mixing
>
> the two causes another confusion.
>
>
>
> Scholars should focus on difficult lines, not common things again and
>
> again. Those difficult lines honor Shakespeare more when solved.
>
neon...@gmail.com
Jun 22, 2013, 3:32:39 AM6/22/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:34:41 PM UTC-7, Tom Reedy wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&
> Elizabeth writes: That's an oxymoron, Reedy, rational people
>
> do NOT buy into conspiracy theories.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&
> Elizabeth writes: That's an oxymoron, Reedy, rational people
>
> do NOT buy into conspiracy theories.
Jim F.
Jul 16, 2015, 2:46:52 AM7/16/15
to
Why Rational People dodge?
marco
Sep 25, 2015, 7:44:11 PM9/25/15
to
freeru...@gmail.com
Sep 26, 2015, 7:31:17 AM9/26/15
to
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 at 9:34:41 AM UTC+10, Tom Reedy wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&
"Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories"
Because otherwise they wouldn't be rational.
It is possible we live in an age with perfect information flows and a media that ruthlessly hunts down corruption and deceit in the establishment.
But if it is the case this would be unique and utterly unprecedented time in human history.
It is more rational to believe our media and governing elite are as stuffed full of self-serving BS as they always have been in the past.
graham.a...@btinternet.com
Sep 26, 2015, 9:18:46 AM9/26/15
to
It's because the modern education system (and I don't mean the teaching in it) breeds people who listen to a select few people. It started when any country extending the school leaving age pass the point when people start to go into puberty. Generally around 13 years of age. By doing that young people's development has been interfered with from the natural way it had developed in the past. In the past young people between 13 and 21 would have mixed with the outside world during the daylight hours. They would have developed social skills from a wide variety of different aged people. These days they are stuck in a classroom with kids often the same age in front of a teacher, who's experience of life is often, going to school then going to college then teaching! In other words these people know nothing of the world. I have developed the theory that what the world is suffering from now is the "education culture".
Kids that have been brought up under this question everything that the older people do or say. They don't agree with this or that and so there is no such thing as rational person alive today! At least none of them that spent their years in education after their 13 birthday!
It doesn't matter how good the school is or what they teach, even teaching life skills. It simply won't work. The kids will learn things only from each other. You can teach them what you like, but they should not be allowed to mix with just people of their own age.
You see at the end of the day the human body is just like it was 10,000 years ago. We think that we have overcome the primitive in us and we have fooled ourselves in to thinking we have. But we haven't. That thing we call puberty isn't just about sexual development it, it shapes our minds from the experiences we have when we are going through it. Mix people who are going through it with the older generation and they learn life skills. Dealing with people socially, respecting views and the rest. You can't teach that!
I can't sum it up better than this song:
" My father is a doctor, he's a family man,
My mother works for charity whenever she can,
They're both good clean Americans who abide by the law,
They both stick up for liberty, they both support the law,
My happiness was paid for when they laid their money down,
For Summers in a Summer camp, and Winters in the town,
My future in the system was talked about and planned,
But I gave it up for music and the free electric band
I went to school in hand-washed shirts with neatly oiled hair,
The school was big and newly built and filled with light and air,
And the teacher taught his values that we had to learn to keep,
And he clipped the ear of many idle kid who went to sleep,
My father organized for me a college in the East,
But I went to California, the sun-shine and the beach,
My parents and my lecturers could never understand,
Why I gave it up for music and the free electric band
Well, they used to sit and speculate upon their son's career,
A lawyer or a doctor or a civil engineer,
Just give me bread and water, put a guitar in my hand,
'Cause all I need is music and the free electric band"
Of course he could have give it up for anything else, but it was his mixing with the young only that even put the ideas into his head. He simply said F U to them all!
Kids that have been brought up under this question everything that the older people do or say. They don't agree with this or that and so there is no such thing as rational person alive today! At least none of them that spent their years in education after their 13 birthday!
It doesn't matter how good the school is or what they teach, even teaching life skills. It simply won't work. The kids will learn things only from each other. You can teach them what you like, but they should not be allowed to mix with just people of their own age.
You see at the end of the day the human body is just like it was 10,000 years ago. We think that we have overcome the primitive in us and we have fooled ourselves in to thinking we have. But we haven't. That thing we call puberty isn't just about sexual development it, it shapes our minds from the experiences we have when we are going through it. Mix people who are going through it with the older generation and they learn life skills. Dealing with people socially, respecting views and the rest. You can't teach that!
I can't sum it up better than this song:
" My father is a doctor, he's a family man,
My mother works for charity whenever she can,
They're both good clean Americans who abide by the law,
They both stick up for liberty, they both support the law,
My happiness was paid for when they laid their money down,
For Summers in a Summer camp, and Winters in the town,
My future in the system was talked about and planned,
But I gave it up for music and the free electric band
I went to school in hand-washed shirts with neatly oiled hair,
The school was big and newly built and filled with light and air,
And the teacher taught his values that we had to learn to keep,
And he clipped the ear of many idle kid who went to sleep,
My father organized for me a college in the East,
But I went to California, the sun-shine and the beach,
My parents and my lecturers could never understand,
Why I gave it up for music and the free electric band
Well, they used to sit and speculate upon their son's career,
A lawyer or a doctor or a civil engineer,
Just give me bread and water, put a guitar in my hand,
'Cause all I need is music and the free electric band"
Of course he could have give it up for anything else, but it was his mixing with the young only that even put the ideas into his head. He simply said F U to them all!
BCD
Sep 28, 2015, 2:09:33 PM9/28/15
to
Best Wishes,
--BCD
0 new messages