The psychology of conspiracy theorists

[beedarko]

Interesting read...



WEDNESDAY, APR 24, 2013 03:10 PM MDT
Why people believe in conspiracy theories
An expert explains the psychology of conspiratorial thinking
BY ALEX SEITZ-WALD

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/24/why_people_believe_in_conspiracy_theories/

We’ve written before about the historical and social aspects of conspiracy theories, but wanted to learn more about the psychology of people who believe, for instance, that the Boston Marathon bombing was a government “false flag” operation. Psychological forces like motivated reasoning have long been associated with conspiracy thinking, but scientists are learning more every year. For instance, a British study published last year found that people who believe one conspiracy theory are prone to believe many, even ones that are completely contradictory.

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, a cognitive scientist at the University of Western Australia, published a paper late last month in the journal Psychological Science that has received widespread praise for looking at the thinking behind conspiracy theories about science and climate change. We asked him to explain the psychology of conspiracy theories. This conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.

First of all, why do people believe conspiracy theories?

There are number of factors, but probably one of the most important ones in this instance is that, paradoxically, it gives people a sense of control. People hate randomness, they dread the sort of random occurrences that can destroy their lives, so as a mechanism against that dread, it turns out that it’s much easier to believe in a conspiracy. Then you have someone to blame, it’s not just randomness.

What are the psychological forces at play in conspiracy thinking?

Basically what’s happening in any conspiracy theory is that people have a need or a motivation to believe in this theory, and it’s psychologically different from evidence-based thinking. A conspiracy theory is immune to evidence, and that can pretty well serve as the definition of one. If you reject evidence, or reinterpret the evidence to be confirmation of your theory, or you ignore mountains of evidence to focus on just one thing, you’re probably a conspiracy theorist. We call that a self-sealing nature of reasoning.

more...

[gillianren]

I don't think that article says anything new.

[beedarko]

I don't think that article says anything new.

Too bad you can't unread it.

[ineluki]

Interesting read...

There are number of factors, but probably one of the most important ones in this instance is that, paradoxically, it gives people a sense of control. People hate randomness, they dread the sort of random occurrences that can destroy their lives, so as a mechanism against that dread, it turns out that it’s much easier to believe in a conspiracy. Then you have someone to blame, it’s not just randomness.

FWIW I  usually get the impression that it's not just randomness, but a desire to ignore their own faults (judging by the i.e. the Hoaxers we have around, being obnoxious, dumb and lazy)

[Noldi400]

Poor hunchbacked.  He's actually one of the more "pleasant" HBs around.  He never seems to get angry and abusive, although he may politely tell you that you're evidently not intelligent enough to understand what he's talking about.

Over on YT, he's currently abusing the laws of physics in the form of orbital mechanics (specifically the descent of the LM) - I think he's using the same material he was advocating here two or three years ago.

[ka9q]

It would be really nice to get him to write a computer program to simulate all this so he could see for himself that NASA had good reason to land the LM as they did. A genius like him should have all the skills needed to do this, but he sees his current position as so obviously true that it needs no confirmation. And if someone else were to do it, he would simply label him/her as a "disinformer".

That's a HB-bestowed title I proudly bear, btw.

[Noldi400]

It would be really nice to get him to write a computer program to simulate all this so he could see for himself that NASA had good reason to land the LM as they did. A genius like him should have all the skills needed to do this, but he sees his current position as so obviously true that it needs no confirmation. And if someone else were to do it, he would simply label him/her as a "disinformer".

That's a HB-bestowed title I proudly bear, btw.

Oh, he did.

http://youtu.be/Jo9kS4agkMM

According to it, the LM crashed 102^o after the DOI burn.

He has also given a precise description of his research technique - see my sig.

[gillianren]

Oh, goodie.  "Look at the picture" science.  That's always so accurate!

[Glom]

I can't help but notice your new signature.  This guy sounds like such an archetype.

[Zakalwe]

I can't help but notice your new signature.  This guy sounds like such an archetype douche-bag idiot

Corrected, for accuracy....

[ka9q]

I know Gillianren doesn't like to talk about another's possible mental illness, but I've been following hunchbacked for so long, and he seems to exhibit so many of the classic signs, that it's very hard not to.

Every time he talks about "NASA whistleblowers" trying to get information past their evil but stupid CIA masters  I can't help but think about Dr. John Nash's delusion of looking for secret messages from the Russians hidden in newspapers and magazines.

[gillianren]

I know Gillianren doesn't like to talk about another's possible mental illness, but I've been following hunchbacked for so long, and he seems to exhibit so many of the classic signs, that it's very hard not to.

That's in part because my first question was "classic signs of what?"  It's clear from your second paragraph that you're talking about schizophrenia; you're comparing him directly to a schizophrenic.  However, "mental illness" covers a lot of ground, and the signs of one are not the signs of another.

[Noldi400]

I know Gillianren doesn't like to talk about another's possible mental illness, but I've been following hunchbacked for so long, and he seems to exhibit so many of the classic signs, that it's very hard not to.

That's in part because my first question was "classic signs of what?"  It's clear from your second paragraph that you're talking about schizophrenia; you're comparing him directly to a schizophrenic.  However, "mental illness" covers a lot of ground, and the signs of one are not the signs of another.

Gillianren, I'm pretty much in agreement with you, and maybe even more skeptical than you are about diagnosing mental health issues based on a person's writings, but in the case of hunchbacked/Inquisitivemind, I (and others) have been fencing with him for so long that it's hard to believe that either (a) he's deliberately playing the foole for his own entertainment, or (b) 'sumpin's wrong with that boy'.

He's voiced some strange and complex theories involving JFK, the CIA, the Russians, and a 'cast of thousands'.  Wild-ass theories aren't the same as delusions, though.  The one thing I can point to that could possibly be a delusion is that he adamantly claims to have a degree in Engineering from  the École nationale supérieure de l'aéronautique et de l'espace  in France.  He has even displayed scans of his diploma and other documentation (with the name blacked out) on YT and on his personal website. He certainly seems very sincere in this claim.

However, while he does demonstrate a superficial knowledge of the concepts involved, I think ka9q will agree with me that his understanding of basic physics and related subjects (optics, electronics, orbital mechanics, you-name-it) is deeply flawed; if he ever did have advanced training in the field, it has either left his mind or become thoroughly distorted.

His most evident other deficiency (IMO) is his total inability to look at a picture and understand what he's looking at. That hardly sets him apart from other HBs, though.

One thing I will say for him, though - he's much more civil and even tempered than the average HB... I don't think I've ever seen him resort to name-calling. He may tell you that you are evidently not intelligent enough to understand the point he's making, but he never seems angry about it - just serenely confident in his own viewpoint.

ka9q, would you say that's pretty accurate?  Additions / deletions / ugly remarks?

[gillianren]

He's voiced some strange and complex theories involving JFK, the CIA, the Russians, and a 'cast of thousands'.  Wild-ass theories aren't the same as delusions, though.  The one thing I can point to that could possibly be a delusion is that he adamantly claims to have a degree in Engineering from  the École nationale supérieure de l'aéronautique et de l'espace  in France.  He has even displayed scans of his diploma and other documentation (with the name blacked out) on YT and on his personal website. He certainly seems very sincere in this claim.

However, while he does demonstrate a superficial knowledge of the concepts involved, I think ka9q will agree with me that his understanding of basic physics and related subjects (optics, electronics, orbital mechanics, you-name-it) is deeply flawed; if he ever did have advanced training in the field, it has either left his mind or become thoroughly distorted.

Which is so common, especially in people who go on to work in another field, that I can't fathom using it as evidence of anything.  And where do you propose he got the allegedly faked documentation?

[Noldi400]

He's voiced some strange and complex theories involving JFK, the CIA, the Russians, and a 'cast of thousands'.  Wild-ass theories aren't the same as delusions, though.  The one thing I can point to that could possibly be a delusion is that he adamantly claims to have a degree in Engineering from  the École nationale supérieure de l'aéronautique et de l'espace  in France.  He has even displayed scans of his diploma and other documentation (with the name blacked out) on YT and on his personal website. He certainly seems very sincere in this claim.

However, while he does demonstrate a superficial knowledge of the concepts involved, I think ka9q will agree with me that his understanding of basic physics and related subjects (optics, electronics, orbital mechanics, you-name-it) is deeply flawed; if he ever did have advanced training in the field, it has either left his mind or become thoroughly distorted.

Which is so common, especially in people who go on to work in another field, that I can't fathom using it as evidence of anything.  And where do you propose he got the allegedly faked documentation?

If you mean that people often forget or misremember things they once learned, especially if they haven't kept up with the field, I completely agree.  But I think that everyone I've known in that circumstance is aware that they don't remember. 

I think maybe I haven't gotten across the degree of his variance from standard knowledge.  Honestly, wouldn't you wonder about someone who claimed to have a B.A. in English who was absolutely certain that Hemingway was a noted British author who was a lifelong teetotaler and died fighting as a member of the French Resistance?  Or that Eudora Welty was one of the most underappreciated Canadian poets of the Victorian Era?

People may forget specifics, but my experience has been that they seldom completely forget principles. You see my sig about  his view of research. Does that sound like someone who has ever been trained in the rigors of science?  He was here on this board a couple of years ago as inquisitivemind; back then your comment to him was:

And again, this proves to me that you are not a scientist of any fashion. Not a scholar. Not someone with any kind of understanding of how proper research works. What if I decided that your name was Gargleplatz? Now, that's not your name. It's not what anyone else calls you. But I've gotten used to it, and I think everyone knows who I mean, so that's what I'm going to call you from now on.

Gargleplatz, have you not understood that, among the rocket scientists who think you are wrong are several members of this board? There are people who post here who know you're wrong, because if you were right, the thing they do for a living wouldn't work if they operated the way they're telling you they should.

Out of context, of course, but evidently you were convinced.  And the claims he is making are exactly what they were back then. 

As to his diploma, I didn't say, or mean to imply, that it was fake. In fact I have no opinion on its authenticity; I lack sufficient data. This is what he presented:


Is this what a diploma from that school looked like? I have no idea.

Unusual for the CT crowd, hunchbacked even displayed a sense of humor about skeptical responses to his educational claims: