Self selection in conspiracy theorists

[_Dr Exiled]

No. Additional investigation never resolved anything as far as the CTer is concerned. He simply dismisses contrary evidence as part of the plot or its coverup. It’s easy to debunk a conspiracy theory if the rational portion of your brain is reigning in the patternicity and intentionality biases. But if those biases are running wild, no amount of additional evidence will persuade the individual to give up the conclusion that conspiracy is fooling the sheeple.

Read Smokey’s And then one day thread, and pay close attention to how he reacts when someone presents him with evidence that contradicts his claims. That’s all that additional investigation buys you. On the ball point pen issue. I’ve stayed away from presenting the actual evidence and focused on the lack of evidence to support his claims for exactly that reason. Now, suppose I started from the beginning and told the whole ball point pen story: where it came from, how the evidence had been distorted and lied about by holocaust deniers, how an in-depth, comprehensive study was commissioned to investigate the bases of claims that the diary was a forgery, and how that study specifically identified the ball point pen ink and absolutely put to rest any notion that anything having to do with ball point pen ink proved the diary was a fraud or forgery, how do you think he’ll react? Will he say any things resembling: Oh. Okay. You’re right. Three ball point pen issue is a nothingburger. Not gonna post that one again. Or will he say something very different.

I'm not talking about convincing the religiously converted to a certain position that their position is wrong. There are a lot of good people that still believe in Mormonism despite the evidence and there are a lot of good people that are so entrenched in their views about Trump that no amount of evidence will convince them to change their views with respect to impeachment. Some people will remain with their current views regardless of what is put before them.

However, that doesn't mean that claims shouldn't continue to be investigated, despite how silly they used to appear or continue to appear. Recently, Doc linked to the former Marine pilot who saw UFO's while off the california coast. His story and the videos recently released were really interesting. Does that mean that all of a sudden all of the UFO claims are true? No, but the Marine pilot was believable and the video was believable too. Maybe the smokeys of the world will remain with us, but I would like to hear if someone could shed more light whatever is supposedly decided. New evidences periodically come up that change how history should be interpreted and DNA has exonerated a lot of supposed perpetrators of crime.

[_EAllusion]

Yes, but investigating claims is beneficial, right? It may be a very quick process as with flat earthers, but obviously, that changes with the strength of the claim that is at issue.

In an ideal world, you investigate everything down to every last jot and tittle. In the real world, resources are limited and you have to steer your investigation in proportion to the plausibility of claims. Because of this, it doesn't quite work the way your comments implied. Flat Earthism really isn't extensively interrogated by expert opinion.

What happens in pseudoscientific and other fringe movements is they usually develop very intricate arguments, usually spearheaded by a few subject matter experts who have gone off the ranch, and they use the fact that they aren't seriously engaged as a rhetorical demonstration that either 1) they're being unfairly dismissed by a dogmatic establishment and/or 2) their experts are the only ones who really have investigated the issue and therefore must be deferred to.

They usually fold like a cheap suit with a fraction of the attention legitimate insurgent arguments in academia get, but they aren't usually getting full investigation. Critics usually are a ragtag group of former believers, experts and allied skeptics engaging them as a personal hobby, and - when their social influence becomes significant - experts trying to push back against public influence.

You name the quackery and this is the pattern you're likely to see.

[_EAllusion]

Yes, but investigating claims is beneficial, right? It may be a very quick process as with flat earthers, but obviously, that changes with the strength of the claim that is at issue.

In an ideal world, you investigate everything down to every last jot and tittle. In the real world, resources are limited and you have to steer your investigation in proportion to the plausibility of claims. Because of this, it doesn't quite work the way your comments implied. Flat Earthism really isn't extensively interrogated by expert opinion.

What happens in pseudoscientific and other fringe movements is they usually develop very intricate arguments, usually spearheaded by a few subject matter experts who have gone off the ranch, and they use the fact that they aren't seriously engaged as a rhetorical demonstration that either 1) they're being unfairly dismissed by a dogmatic establishment and/or 2) their experts are the only ones who really have investigated the issue and therefore must be deferred to.

They usually fold like a cheap suit with a fraction of the attention legitimate insurgent arguments in academia get, but they aren't usually getting full investigation. Critics usually are a ragtag group of former believers, experts and allied skeptics engaging them as a personal hobby, and - when their social influence becomes significant - experts trying to push back against public influence.

You name the quackery and this is the pattern you're likely to see.

Just to acknowledge the elephant in the room, yes, this exact pattern plays out with Mormon apologetics.

[_DarkHelmet]

Yes, but investigating claims is beneficial, right? It may be a very quick process as with flat earthers, but obviously, that changes with the strength of the claim that is at issue.

In an ideal world, you investigate everything down to every last jot and tittle. In the real world, resources are limited and you have to steer your investigation in proportion to the plausibility of claims. Because of this, it doesn't quite work the way your comments implied. Flat Earthism really isn't extensively interrogated by expert opinion.

What happens in pseudoscientific and other fringe movements is they usually develop very intricate arguments, usually spearheaded by a few subject matter experts who have gone off the ranch, and they use the fact that they aren't seriously engaged as a rhetorical demonstration that either 1) they're being unfairly dismissed by a dogmatic establishment and/or 2) their experts are the only ones who really have investigated the issue and therefore must be deferred to.

They usually fold like a cheap suit with a fraction of the attention legitimate insurgent arguments in academia get, but they aren't usually getting full investigation. Critics usually are a ragtag group of former believers, experts and allied skeptics engaging them as a personal hobby, and - when their social influence becomes significant - experts trying to push back against public influence.

You name the quackery and this is the pattern you're likely to see.

The bolded part is probably the main reason experts would spend their time and energy debunking pseudoscience. Most conspiracy theories, religions, and pseudoscienctific claims are harmless and not worth the time to debunk. Who cares if a small group of people want to believe the Earth is flat, or that Joseph Smith found gold plates? Experts usually weigh in on beliefs that are harmful to the larger society, like anti-vaxxers and global warming denial at the government level. But the long term impact of even the most benign conspiracy theories is a growing number of people who distrust the scientific process, experts in their fields, and respected institutions in favor of loud personalities who feed our paranoia and pre-existing beliefs. It feels like belief in conspiracy theories and pseudoscience is at an all time high in modern history, but that could just be the internet and social media giving these fringe groups a disproportionately large voice.

[_Res Ipsa]

No. Additional investigation never resolved anything as far as the CTer is concerned. He simply dismisses contrary evidence as part of the plot or its coverup. It’s easy to debunk a conspiracy theory if the rational portion of your brain is reigning in the patternicity and intentionality biases. But if those biases are running wild, no amount of additional evidence will persuade the individual to give up the conclusion that conspiracy is fooling the sheeple.

Read Smokey’s And then one day thread, and pay close attention to how he reacts when someone presents him with evidence that contradicts his claims. That’s all that additional investigation buys you. On the ball point pen issue. I’ve stayed away from presenting the actual evidence and focused on the lack of evidence to support his claims for exactly that reason. Now, suppose I started from the beginning and told the whole ball point pen story: where it came from, how the evidence had been distorted and lied about by holocaust deniers, how an in-depth, comprehensive study was commissioned to investigate the bases of claims that the diary was a forgery, and how that study specifically identified the ball point pen ink and absolutely put to rest any notion that anything having to do with ball point pen ink proved the diary was a fraud or forgery, how do you think he’ll react? Will he say any things resembling: Oh. Okay. You’re right. Three ball point pen issue is a nothingburger. Not gonna post that one again. Or will he say something very different.

I'm not talking about convincing the religiously converted to a certain position that their position is wrong. There are a lot of good people that still believe in Mormonism despite the evidence and there are a lot of good people that are so entrenched in their views about Trump that no amount of evidence will convince them to change their views with respect to impeachment. Some people will remain with their current views regardless of what is put before them.

However, that doesn't mean that claims shouldn't continue to be investigated, despite how silly they used to appear or continue to appear. Recently, Doc linked to the former Marine pilot who saw UFO's while off the california coast. His story and the videos recently released were really interesting. Does that mean that all of a sudden all of the UFO claims are true? No, but the Marine pilot was believable and the video was believable too. Maybe the smokeys of the world will remain with us, but I would like to hear if someone could shed more light whatever is supposedly decided. New evidences periodically come up that change how history should be interpreted and DNA has exonerated a lot of supposed perpetrators of crime.

All of the examples you’ve given area not driven by conspiratorial thinking. The Navy sees evidence that something is infringing on their training space, and it’s absolutely rational to say: let’s investigate and figure out what this is. I suspect the Navy would have started to investigate this sooner if the military had not been attacked for decades by conspiracy theorists accusing it of covering up aliens. One of the differences between conspiratorial and best fit thinking its that when the latter spots an alleged anomaly, it investigates to find out whether it is actually an anomaly. If the Navy investigates these images and discovers that it is anything other than aliens, the conspiracy theorists will dismiss the findings out of hand s part of a continued military conduct. Just as you dismiss out of hand the investigations into and evidence of Russia’s interference into the 2016 election.

The most recent large autism/vaccination study was entirely unnecessary. There was no medical controversy over the issue. But the there was some hope that the anti-Vaxxers would be persuaded to give up their conspiracy theory. Did they go away? Was the “controversy” resolved?

[_Markk]

Shades,

Read through this...I am still reading through it but it is clear how the planes caused the towers to collapse. https://www.nist.gov/system/files/docum ... on_WTC.pdf

In general...

First...the planes when entering the building severed several/and or damaged several, in varying degrees, main support columns (see pages 18,19, 22). This is the first "weakening" that occurred.

Second...the planes fuel entered into the central shaft system (MEP's mecanical, electrical, and plumbing, and the elevator). and basically distributed the burning fuel throughout the building.

The burning of the fuel while not hot enough to melt steel, was hot enough to weaken the steel to the point that the gravity load on each member to "bend and bow". Think of a blacksmith heating metal to shape a horseshoe. They get the metal hot, then they bend and shape it in a horseshoe shape. I make rustic hardware in my shop for home projects, using the same method. (see page 66)...this shows how steel bends and bows under heat. When you add the gravity load from above, it is easy to see how the steel could bend then finally break.

Look at the photo on page 34, you can see the structure actually bowing under the extreme heat and gravity load from above.

This created a "pancake" event, where the load from above, pressing dead loads onto the the bowing steel basically pushed the tower down to the ground. Think of it as if you built a tower out of playing cards and you simply pushed the cards down with your hand.

This also explains why the panels and glazing blew outwards. The air and pressures of the interior building, under the load and pancaking, acted like an accordion pushing dust, glazings and debris away from the towers and into the streets.

There is obviously more involved, but in a nutshell this is what happened and it makes perfect logical sense vs a mass conspiracy that would involve 100's if not 1000's of players, from key engineers to grunts in the field.

[_Chap]

<Detailed and persuasive commentary on building collapse, clearly delivered on the basis of extensive practical experience as well as on clear grasp of the basic principles of high building construction>

There is obviously more involved, but in a nutshell this is what happened and it makes perfect logical sense vs a mass conspiracy that would involve 100's if not 1000's of players, from key engineers to grunts in the field.

The bolded bit is key. As Markk has explained already, setting up and executing controlled demolition of those buildings would have involved a very large group of technicians working to a carefully monitored and executed plan. Quite apart from the extreme unlikelihood that such a plan could have been executed without anybody noticing the associated preparatory activities, we then have to entertain the frankly incredible belief that all those people have keep schtum for all the years since the collapse of the towers.

The accepted narrative that the buildings collapsed in consequence of a Islamist terrorist attack is hugely more plausible in pretty well every way.

[_DarkHelmet]

<Detailed and persuasive commentary on building collapse, clearly delivered on the basis of extensive practical experience as well as on clear grasp of the basic principles of high building construction>

There is obviously more involved, but in a nutshell this is what happened and it makes perfect logical sense vs a mass conspiracy that would involve 100's if not 1000's of players, from key engineers to grunts in the field.

The bolded bit is key. As Markk has explained already, setting up and executing controlled demolition of those buildings would have involved a very large group of technicians working to a carefully monitored and executed plan. Quite apart from the extreme unlikelihood that such a plan could have been executed without anybody noticing the associated preparatory activities, we then have to entertain the frankly incredible belief that all those people have keep schtum for all the years since the collapse of the towers.

The accepted narrative that the buildings collapsed in consequence of a Islamist terrorist attack is hugely more plausible in pretty well every way.

And the conspirators would need to ensure that the missiles disguised as planes struck at the perfect spot, right above where the timed demolitions were set to begin going off, without damaging the demolition preparation, or setting it off prematurely. A much easier plan would be for the conspirators to hijack some planes and fly them into the WTC towers.

[_Gadianton]

Only instead of an all powerful God, it assumes an all powerful conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists don't try to gather all the evidence and find the best fit explanation. They hunt for anomalies -- things that they can't explain or that they don't think fit with a straightforward, best-fit explanation.

I think this is a great insight. Once you've got the anomaly covered with the God, then surely that God is compatible with the mundane stuff as well. There's also parsimony in reverse. Let's say you have a UFO conspiracy and totally separate you also have a free energy conspiracy. Those can be combined since the aliens also have the secret to free energy.

And, at bottom, it results in a rejection in the notion of expertise. You can't trust NASA because they're hiding the truth.

Right, in a lot of these right-wing youtube videos the guy will say, "now I'm just a retired trucker with no fancy degrees and so why would you believe me? well, I'm just talking common sense..."

In the flat-earth documentary "Behind the Curve", various FE groups were getting experiments together to prove the earth is flat. Some of these required sophisticated equipment like lasers and gyroscopes that they wouldn't have a chance at comprehending let alone fabricating. Presumably, all of modern industry is broadly complicit with the lie as airlines and everything has to be in on it. There's all kinds of "loose change" here on the floor, when these morons either think a) they are the first ones smart enough to think of an experiment with easily obtainable technology to prove the shape of the earth or b) they are the first ones honest enough to tell the truth about it. Interestingly, it never occurs to them that if the powers that be are so powerful that up until that very day, nobody but them got to the bottom of it, that there's a good reason for it? The lasers and other devices must be rigged in anticipation of freedom-lovers like themselves.

There is a huge tension in right-wing conspiracy thinking (which in today's world reduces to plain vanilla right-wing thinking). On the one hand, right-wingers are all about personal freedom and belief that the government is hugely inefficient and wasteful, and government workers are stupid, and government can't solve problems only free enterprise and so on. On the other hand, they believe in these far-reaching conspiratorial plots by government that include everything from rigging economic collapse, to FEMA, to global warming conspiracy, and all of this stuff ties back in to a plot for a one-world government and we're getting played like puppets. If the government really could pull all this stuff off -- if it's all going right to plan, then government is frighteningly intelligent and efficient, and nearly godlike. There is absolutely no argument for market vs. government, government wins hands down. The argument left on the table would be to get a better government, and use it's magic-like abilities for better ends that they agree with.

[_Maksutov]

Yes, but investigating claims is beneficial, right? It may be a very quick process as with flat earthers, but obviously, that changes with the strength of the claim that is at issue.

In an ideal world, you investigate everything down to every last jot and tittle. In the real world, resources are limited and you have to steer your investigation in proportion to the plausibility of claims. Because of this, it doesn't quite work the way your comments implied. Flat Earthism really isn't extensively interrogated by expert opinion.

What happens in pseudoscientific and other fringe movements is they usually develop very intricate arguments, usually spearheaded by a few subject matter experts who have gone off the ranch, and they use the fact that they aren't seriously engaged as a rhetorical demonstration that either 1) they're being unfairly dismissed by a dogmatic establishment and/or 2) their experts are the only ones who really have investigated the issue and therefore must be deferred to.

They usually fold like a cheap suit with a fraction of the attention legitimate insurgent arguments in academia get, but they aren't usually getting full investigation. Critics usually are a ragtag group of former believers, experts and allied skeptics engaging them as a personal hobby, and - when their social influence becomes significant - experts trying to push back against public influence.

You name the quackery and this is the pattern you're likely to see.

Perfect description, EA. It's like a template.