The psychology of conspiracy theorists

[smartcooky]

This is what he presented:


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

Interesting that the subject (option) on the diploma is "Avionique"

If hunchbacked is an Avionics Engineer, well, I'll go he!!

[gillianren]

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 don't, to be honest.  Memory is malleable.

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?

Yes, in that case, I would probably assume they were lying.  (Though I'll point out that I once encountered a headline about Eudora Welty's death and was astonished--because it meant she was still alive.  I thought she'd died decades ago!)  However, I know plenty of English majors who don't remember things like comma rules--and don't remember that they don't remember.

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:

Oh, that guy.  You see, I don't remember them all, and I certainly don't keep track of the specifics.  Yeah, I'll accept that guy as a liar.  However, even that doesn't automatically assume mentally ill to me for reasons I'll get to in a minute.

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

The specific claim I was rebutting there, as I recall, was "you all know what I'm talking about, so why should I bother using proper terminology?"  Which, to my mind, is a much more clear indication of someone who is lying about their background than merely forgetting even things that seem obvious.

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:[clipped image]

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

No, and nor do I.  If I cared more about him than I do, that's something I'd look up.  Heck, maybe someone here knows without looking it up?

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

Sorry; I basically don't watch YouTube videos, and I never watch hoax videos.

Okay.  So the reason I am as hesitant in the situation as in any other to claim mental illness is that we don't know how he acts in day-to-day life.  This is important.  This is really the most important thing about diagnosing mental illness.  Knowing how a person behaves in one aspect of their life is never enough.  Does he believe way-out things?  I can't even be sure of that, to be honest.  He might be involved in an elaborate leg-pull, for all I know.  However, assuming he believes it, and even assuming he's lying about that documentation, that still isn't enough to prove mental illness to me, and it certainly isn't enough to prove schizophrenia.

[smartcooky]

Sorry; I basically don't watch YouTube videos, and I never watch hoax videos.

Sun Tzu would say that is a mistake!

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."
- The Art of War; Ch3

The more information you have about your opponent and how he thinks, the better you will be able to argue against his cause.

[ka9q]

Sorry; I basically don't watch YouTube videos, and I never watch hoax videos.

Then you're missing out on some real howlers, like

(Title: A Command module or the Nautilus?") in which he claims a 16mm movie of "Buzz Aldrin" aboard the Columbia making a sandwich in 0-g was actually shot on earth under water with the role of "Buzz Aldrin" played by an imposter wearing a Buzz Aldrin mask. The small wires in his headset were actually hoses carrying oxygen to the actor.

No, I'm not making this up. This was the moment I realized for certain that his elevator doesn't go all the way to the top and that I had no chance of ever reaching him with logic based on verifiable facts.

Hunchbacked got such a reaction that he doubled down and followed up with

(Title: "It really happens in water"). There he does admit his assertion seems weird (an understatement, I must say) but he gives every indication of being perfectly serious.

Okay.  So the reason I am as hesitant in the situation as in any other to claim mental illness is that we don't know how he acts in day-to-day life.  This is important.

Agreed, but judging from the sheer number of videos he's made in recent years I'd say that his day-to-day life consists of little more than making Apollo hoax videos for Youtube. From time to time he does take a breather to make Youtube videos about JFK and his assassination and even the Amanda Knox case. He doesn't cut much slack even for those who maintain neutrality, such as when I said I had no opinion about the Knox case because I knew very little about it and thought it had little importance in the grand scheme of things.

[Glom]

Feeding oxygen through wires?

Where's that stupid burns pic?

[Andromeda]

So the reason I am as hesitant in the situation as in any other to claim mental illness is that we don't know how he acts in day-to-day life.  This is important.  This is really the most important thing about diagnosing mental illness.  Knowing how a person behaves in one aspect of their life is never enough.

No-one who diagnoses mental illness in anyone else knows how the person really acts in day to day life.  Doctors and other medical professionals only see what is presented at the time of the consultation and what the patient chooses to share in that room at that time - ie in one aspect of his or her life.

Mental illness is routinely diagnosed here in a single seven minute appointment by someone who might have never met the patient before, so I don't think your argument about what it takes to make a diagnosis is entirely correct.

It may or may not be possible or fair (or ethical) to diagnose mental illness online.  However, it can be useful to know how to interact with someone displaying such symptoms.

[RAF]

I basically don't watch YouTube videos, and I never watch hoax videos.

I can understand the later, (they just make me mad), but not the former...

By pure coincidence, I just posted a youtube link in the reality of Apollo section...a video celebrating the 40th anniversary of the flight of Apollo 15...and it is well worth watching for anyone interested in Apollo/spaceflight/etc.


This is just one example, of many, many treasures to be found on youtube...so I "guess" I am disagreeing with gillianren. (Hey, it had to happen eventually. )

[gillianren]

The reason I don't watch YouTube videos is that I watch a lot of DVDs.  I'm sure there are great things on YouTube, and it has occasionally been the only way to track down something I really cared about.  (When Maurice Sendak died, I reviewed Really Rosie by watching it on YouTube, because it wasn't available anywhere else accessible.)  However, I own hundreds of DVDs.  I get probably an average of ten items on DVD a week from the library, which includes seasons of TV shows.  I have a Netflix subscription.  I'm getting along just fine for content without adding YouTube onto that.

As for why I don't watch hoax videos, well, they aren't that interesting to me for the most part.  I think the information can almost always be conveyed better in text.  I'm only really interested in the dialogue; the comments section of a YouTube page isn't dialogue, and I have considerably better things to do with my time than make videos in response, even if, again, I thought videos were a decent way of having the discussion.  Which I don't.  Are the HB videos funny?  Possibly.  However, so are some of the things I have on hold from the library, and they aren't funny in a painful way.

Seven minutes, Andromeda?  I would imagine the rate of false diagnosis from that is huge.  And missed diagnosis.  I'm actually horrified to discover that; even my low-cost, constantly overbooked clinic doesn't do intake in less than an hour, and a lot of their patients have something as relatively simple as addiction or an abusive relationship, not even a full-blown mental illness.  The doctors also get a lot of documentation, such as histories of hospitalization and so forth, that can also make a lot of difference.

But if someone's schizophrenic, the way to deal with their delusions is not to.  You can't talk my best friend's aunt out of her fears about the Klan (despite the fact that the Klan is made up of people who look like her, not attacking people like her), because she's schizophrenic.  The only thing that will help is mental health care, which we are none of us qualified to provide and certainly not able to properly provide online.  And since all we interact with is the delusion, then is the right answer to just ignore them?  Or is it better to assume that they're mentally healthy sans this particular glitch and continue to engage?  Or can we even assume that the glitch is not a mental defect and try to engage as equals?  I prefer that last, because any other assumption is unwarranted, unjustified, and unjust.  And, again, if it's a mental illness, there is literally no point in engaging, because you're not going to convince the person--and you stand a decent chance of looking like a bully.

[RAF]

I hope you realize I was just kiddin' around...

[ka9q]

This is just one example, of many, many treasures to be found on youtube...

That's actually quite true. We talk a lot about the conspiracy kooks and utter garbage on Youtube, and there's no question that there's plenty of it. Sturgeon's Law never applied to anything with greater force. But if 90% of everything is crap, then 10% of it is still pretty good. That may be optimistic for Youtube, but there are also some real gems that make slogging through the dreck all worth it.

Such as the excellent science-oriented videos by Brady Haran: periodic videos (chemistry), numberphile (math), sixtysymbols (physics) and others. There's SmarterEveryDay, self-described "redneck science" from Alabama; he's got a nifty high speed camera and he's not afraid to use it. There's Ben Krasnow, a plain-spoken guy who always seems to be doing something thoroughly fascinating in his workshop.

Youtube has a few excellent Apollo conspiracy debunkers who aren't in our community here (to my knowledge). Two stand out: Astrobrant2 and GreaterSapien. (Astrobrant2 must be doing something right: He Who Must Not Be Named constantly files bogus DMCA takedowns against him. GreaterSapien hasn't actually done that many, but the ones he's done show a razor-sharp wit and a remarkable resistance to being pulled down to their level that I wish I had.) And there are some people who've done amazing Apollo-related work having nothing to do with making or breaking conspiracy theories but who remind us just how great that program was. Like agcfanatic, who has built a working hardware replica of the Apollo Guidance Computer. (Of course Hunchbacked insists it doesn't prove the original worked. And he's a computer expert, with a diploma to prove it...)

Seriously, give Youtube a try. Think about it, there's so much stuff there that you know there has to be something good. You just have to work to find it; the usual crowdsourcing ratings schemes don't seem to work well for people with our tastes. Or maybe I just haven't found a compatible crowd over there yet.

[Allan F]

Here's a couple of links to some of the youtube apollo proponents:

Philwebb59 http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2keGTQ8NvY86WyeUHGGweQ

Astrobrant2 http://www.youtube.com/feed/UCgWXC-yoy3fcaDYW_5Sh8kg

Jeff Quitley http://www.youtube.com/user/webdev17/videos

GoneToPlaid http://www.youtube.com/feed/UCkFkkO1vqbh9fQkSn5Reibw

[Andromeda]

Seven minutes, Andromeda?  I would imagine the rate of false diagnosis from that is huge.  And missed diagnosis.  I'm actually horrified to discover that; even my low-cost, constantly overbooked clinic doesn't do intake in less than an hour, and a lot of their patients have something as relatively simple as addiction or an abusive relationship, not even a full-blown mental illness.  The doctors also get a lot of documentation, such as histories of hospitalization and so forth, that can also make a lot of difference.

That's the length of a standard GP appointment.  I have no idea what the rates of false and missed diagnosis are.

The only thing that will help is mental health care, which we are none of us qualified to provide and certainly not able to properly provide online.

That's quite an assumption.  Mental health professionals often do not talk about their work online - there may well be qualified therapists among us.  Also, some therapists do work online.

[RAF]

That's quite an assumption...snip... there may well be qualified therapists among us.

How is this not an assumption on your part?

 

Also, some therapists do work online.

Personally, I'd be very uncomfortable taking any medical "advice" without being able to meet the person giving that advice, in person.

Just sayin'.

[Andromeda]

That's quite an assumption...snip... there may well be qualified therapists among us.

How is this not an assumption on your part?

I don't understand what you mean.  Gillian said there are no qualified therapists here.  Either there are or there are not, we don't know - so I said there "may be" therapists here.

 

Also, some therapists do work online.

Personally, I'd be very uncomfortable taking any medical "advice" without being able to meet the person giving that advice, in person.

Just sayin'.

It isn't done entirely online, talking therapy by Skype is becoming more and more common.  Counselling and psychotherapy are also not "medical advice".

And I really hate the "just sayin'", it sounds very snarky.

[gillianren]

No, I said none of us are qualified to provide help in this setting.  I can see getting therapy by Skype; actually, that would make a lot of sense in a lot of situations.  But this isn't therapy by Skype.  This is, in my experience, being condescending in a forum.  In order for any of us to provide meaningful assistance, we would have to have one-on-one interaction with the person, and the person would have to be willing to accept our help.  The only advice I am generally willing to give with people who seek my assistance online (and people have!) is "get professional help."  If I were a qualified therapist, would someone whose disorder included the kind of delusions we're discussing trust me anyway?  Of course not!  They first encountered me as someone who is arguing with their delusions, which means I'm one of Them.  It is simply not possible for any of us, even if any of us were qualified, to turn a refutation of the person's delusion into meaningful therapy.

As for YouTube, I'm awfully tired of people ignoring why I'm not interested.  It only makes me less interested than I already was.  Yes, I could watch some science documentary or another, but it would take time away from what I'm already doing.  And if I took the suggestion of "no, watch just this one thing!" from everyone who tries to persuade me to spend more time on YouTube, I wouldn't have time to watch the things I already want to from my library.