Critical thinking skills and belief in conspiracy theory

[pinball1970]

This is the article. This is not the usual sort of study I read but given the last 16 months, I thought I would post and see what pf guys thought of the method and conclusions.

The line of best fit in the results seemed a bit random to me but let's see what you make of it.

https://www.psypost.org/2021/07/new-study-indicates-conspiracy-theory-believers-have-less-developed-critical-thinking-ability-61347t
This is the paper

https://psyarxiv.com/8qhx4/

 

[BWV]

Sort of a tautology though - if you have good critical thinking skills then you won't fall for conspiracy theories.

 

[hutchphd]

So that's worthy data in the universe of psychology. Now that's interesting.

With regard to the "theorists" I think a better explanation is best espoused by, among others, comedian Ron White in his classic line

"You can't fix stupid"​

Although I disagree occasionally with Mr White, this maxim deserves to be up there with the AA Serenity Mantra for maintenance of my mental health particularly over the past half decade

 

[jack action]

I think that trust is a much more important factor in conspiracy theories than cognitive abilities. Certainly, "stupidity" has nothing to do with it.

From Believing in Hidden Plots is Associated with Decreased Behavioral Trust: Conspiracy
Belief as Greater Sensitivity to Social Threat or Insensitivity Towards its Absence?:

A common denominator of these behaviors seems to be trust: One has to trust the medical recommendations to allow one’s child to be vaccinated, and one has to trust politicians to represent the will of the electorate in order to see any meaning behind voting and not trusting the basic functioning of a pluralistic system does leave little alternatives to aim at overthrowing it. Trust thus is the glue that binds societies together, but also on a personal level we place our trust in often unknown others countless times every day (Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975; Rotter, 1971). Importantly, the decision to trust determines our subsequent behavior towards the person in question.

For instance, trust is a positive predictor for cooperation (Balliet & Van Lange, 2013). Interpersonal trust can be defined as “a risky choice of making oneself dependent on the actions of another in a situation of uncertainty, based upon some expectation of whether the other will act in a benevolent fashion despite an opportunity to betray” (Thielmann & Hilbig, 2015, p. 251). Broadly speaking, trust depends on both the individual, stable characteristics of the trusting person (e.g., Evans & Revelle, 2008) and the features of the specific trust situation, including, for instance, the trustworthiness of the trustee in question (e.g., Snijders & Keren, 2001; also see Fleeson & Leicht, 2006 for an integrative account on the person-situation perspectives of trust).

Furthermore, this mistrust may be based on a feeling of powerlessness. From The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories:

As well as their purely epistemic purposes, causal explanations serve the need for people to feel safe and secure in their environment and to exert control over the environment as autonomous individuals and as members of collectives (Tetlock, 2002). Several early theories of conspiracy belief suggested that people turn to conspiracy theories for compensatory satisfaction when these needs are threatened. For example, people who lack instrumental control may be afforded some compensatory sense of control by conspiracy theories, because they offer them the opportunity to reject official narratives and feel that they possesses an alternative account (Goertzel, 1994).

Conspiracy theories may promise to make people feel safer as a form of cheater detection, in which dangerous and untrustworthy individuals are recognized and the threat they posed is reduced or neutralized (Bost & Prunier, 2013).

Research supports this account of the motivation behind conspiracy belief. Studies have shown that people are likely to turn to conspiracy theories when they are anxious (Grzesiak-Feldman, 2013) and feel powerless (Abalakina-Paap, Stephan, Craig, & Gregory, 1999). Other research indicates that conspiracy belief is strongly related to lack of sociopolitical control or lack of psychological empowerment (Bruder et al., 2013). Experiments have shown that compared with baseline conditions, conspiracy belief is heightened when people feel unable to control outcomes and is reduced when their sense of control is affirmed (van Prooijen & Acker, 2015).

And:

Second, conspiracy beliefs are related to several negative emotions, such as chronic feelings of powerlessness,
lack of personal control (Abalakina-Paap et al., 1999), death-related anxiety (Newheiser et al., 2011) and fear (Grzesiak-Feldman, 2013). Such emotions tend to cause avoidance-oriented reactions (e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 1999; Green & Phillips, 2004), hence rendering a cautious atmosphere of mistrust likely. In fact, some authors argue that conspiracy beliefs are manifestations of an evolutionary adaptive strategy to be suspicious and distrustful about others’ intentions (Van Prooijen & Van Vugt, 2018).

 

[hutchphd]

Here is a slightly less jaundiced view than my previous: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/c...ence/zen-and-art-talking-conspiracy-theorists

I do occasionally need the other Mantra however.

 

[stevendaryl]

I agree that belief in conspiracy theories is more about emotion than it is about thinking skills. Just to give one example: Look at 9/11. For most normal people, it was easy to explain: Terrorists hijacked a plane, crashed it into the Twin Towers, and the resulting flames caused the building to collapse. But then conspiracy theorists point out that the temperature of jet fuel burning is X, while the temperature required to metal steel is Y < X.

That response isn't stupid. It's a use of critical thinking in attacking the official story. The people who believed the official story didn't do because they understood the temperatures better than the conspiracy theorists. Most likely, they accepted the official story before they even thought about these temperatures. Now, it does turn out that knowing even more will dispute this conspiracy theory objection. Even though steel has a high melting temperature, it gets soft at much lower temperatures. But my point is that the dividing line between conspiracy theorists and intelligence/knowledge is not clear-cut. Low-information people are on both sides of the divide, and high-information people are on both sides.

 

[hutchphd]

It's a use of critical thinking in attacking the official story.

The people who believed the official story didn't do because they understood the temperatures better than the conspiracy theorists.

But the use of critical thinking also must allow you to trust in those more knowledgeable than you to investigate. It is like watching congressman Louie Gohmert explain why sea level rise is a fallacy because when the ice melts in his glass the water level doesn't go up.
Not only is he wrong, he is the poster boy for the Dunning-Krueger effect.
That being said , my favorite Feynman is: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" which is not the same as declaring the moon landing a hoax.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But the use of critical thinking also must allow you to trust in those more knowledgeable than you to investigate. It is like watching congressman Louie Gohmert explain why sea level rise is a fallacy because when the ice melts in his glass the water level doesn't go up.
Not only is he wrong, he is the poster boy for the Dunning-Krueger effect.
That being said , my favorite Feynman is: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" which is not the same as declaring the moon landing a hoax.

I have renamed this - the Dunning-Krueger effect - the Holiday Inn Effect. :)

People don't just overestimate their abilities. Many see no value in being an actual expert. Education is seen as brainwashing, not hard-earned knowledge.

Haven't you heard? Anyone can spend a few days reading on the internet and have the equivalent of a Ph.D.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree that belief in conspiracy theories is more about emotion than it is about thinking skills. Just to give one example: Look at 9/11. For most normal people, it was easy to explain: Terrorists hijacked a plane, crashed it into the Twin Towers, and the resulting flames caused the building to collapse. But then conspiracy theorists point out that the temperature of jet fuel burning is X, while the temperature required to metal steel is Y < X.

That response isn't stupid. It's a use of critical thinking in attacking the official story. The people who believed the official story didn't do because they understood the temperatures better than the conspiracy theorists. Most likely, they accepted the official story before they even thought about these temperatures. Now, it does turn out that knowing even more will dispute this conspiracy theory objection. Even though steel has a high melting temperature, it gets soft at much lower temperatures. But my point is that the dividing line between conspiracy theorists and intelligence/knowledge is not clear-cut. Low-information people are on both sides of the divide, and high-information people are on both sides.

But your argument is that non experts should argue out of ignorance. Did it really take a genius to figure out that hot steel gets soft? Or do you think any real expert would have known that? In turn ten-thousand crackpot conspiracy theories could have been avoided.

Biggest problem I see is that non experts want to challenge anything and everything rather than asking questions. Rather than accepting that they are not experts and should therefore learn, they see themselves as superior to actual experts based on magical knowledge. They believe the average person is much smarter than the highly educated even in their field of expertise!

 

[pinball1970]

I have renamed this - the Dunning-Krueger effect - the Holiday Inn Effect. :)

People don't just overestimate their abilities. Many see no value in being an actual expert. Education is seen as brainwashing, not hard-earned knowledge.

Haven't you heard? Anyone can spend a few days reading on the internet and have the equivalent of a Ph.D.

Your video won't play. Can you let me know the details?

The reason I posted this is because of all the nonsense I have encountered on the internet regarding COVID19 from March last year and my experience in Manchester encountering an anti vax march in May this year.
Anecdotal, in my experiences only.
There are some conspiracy theorists that just want it all to be a conspiracy.
They are anti establishment, superiority complex, NWO nut jobs. Bill Gates wants to put microchips in everyone. Pre Covid there would have been some other conspiracy.
The second group are a little gullible but mainly lack knowledge, MMR causes autism because they heard it did from friends who read something in the paper. COVID has 99.97% recovery rate because it was on YT and FB. An afternoon in the Library with them would probably change their mind.
The third group are Dunning Kruger.
The last group doubt the science and don't trust the government. Probably similar to 911 guys. If it was an inside job the the science guys are probably in on it. Not as crazy one but not as gullible as two or as stupid as three. I could have a beer with that group and change their mind probably.
Vanadium50 said why do you need to disprove the internet to another poster? On this I think it is worth putting stuff out there.

 

[rsk]

I'm already sensing a conspiracy because when I clicked on the link I got "page not found"

Sort of a tautology though - if you have good critical thinking skills then you won't fall for conspiracy theories.

Agree. But you also won't fall for government whitewash and cover-ups which can lead to you being accused of being a conspiracy theorist.

 

[nox]

Sort of a tautology though - if you have good critical thinking skills then you won't fall for conspiracy theories.

What about conspiracy facts?
Human animal chimeras
Cloned beef
The great reset
These all are verifiable facts

 

[nox]

I agree that belief in conspiracy theories is more about emotion than it is about thinking skills. Just to give one example: Look at 9/11. For most normal people, it was easy to explain: Terrorists hijacked a plane, crashed it into the Twin Towers, and the resulting flames caused the building to collapse. But then conspiracy theorists point out that the temperature of jet fuel burning is X, while the temperature required to metal steel is Y < X.

That response isn't stupid. It's a use of critical thinking in attacking the official story. The people who believed the official story didn't do because they understood the temperatures better than the conspiracy theorists. Most likely, they accepted the official story before they even thought about these temperatures. Now, it does turn out that knowing even more will dispute this conspiracy theory objection. Even though steel has a high melting temperature, it gets soft at much lower temperatures. But my point is that the dividing line between conspiracy theorists and intelligence/knowledge is not clear-cut. Low-information people are on both sides of the divide, and high-information people are on both sides.

The official narative is that they found the terrorists passport in the gaping hole wreckage. Building 7 collapsed the same way that is identical as a controlled demolition even if it was not hit by a plane but a wheel part. Have we ever seen buildings collapse on itself from a fire after the fact?
How about people that never flown any commercial jet before could fly in such expert manner they could hit such a narrow target? There are so many flaws in the official narrative

 

[rsk]

"passport in the rubble" has become a standard response in our family to any official statement that sounds implausible or downright false.

 

[nox]

"passport in the rubble" has become a standard response in our family to any official statement that sounds implausible or downright false.

Glad to find others who think that :)

 

[256bits]

Biggest problem I see is that non experts want to challenge anything and everything rather than asking questions. Rather than accepting that they are not experts and should therefore learn, they see themselves as superior to actual experts based on magical knowledge. They believe the average person is much smarter than the highly educated even in their field of expertise!

Agree, but do not agree.
Blindly accepting others explanations is useful at times. and not at other times.
The police and justice system deal with this all the time, and it takes an " impartial" audience to sort out the details, and even then they can be wrong.
What makes something a conspiracy theory anyways.
If one person is correct, and everyone else is wrong, does that one person suddenly become a conspirator if he/she goes about trying to convince others of the correctness of his belief/theory/ facts.
If dis-beliefs are putout by strong agents such as governments is that promotion of conspiratory theory, or just propaganda to sway opinion. So opinion counts. And the more one can sway, the more truthful the idea becomes as it is repeated over and over. Which is what we see on the internet and social forums.

 

[pinball1970]

Have we ever seen buildings collapse on itself from a fire after the fact?

This one in Iran?



And this one in Brazil?

 

[nox]

This one in Iran?

Thank you for the video, but that does not look like a fall straight down that fell to the side. This is exactly my point all 3 buildings collapsed in a way we only see buildings do that undergo controlled demolition by exploding the fondation.

 

[pinball1970]

Thank you for the video, but that does not look like a fall straight down that fell to the side. This is exactly my point all 3 buildings collapsed in a way we only see buildings do that undergo controlled demolition by exploding the fondation.

The Brazil building looked pretty straight, I'm not a structural engineer though so I can only go off what I see.
As my original conspiracy post was referring to my experiences with COVID19 on line and in Manchester, Can I ask for your view on the science of the pandemic?

 

[nox]

The Brazil building looked pretty straight, I'm not a structural engineer though so I can only go off what I see.
As my original conspiracy post was referring to my experiences with COVID19 on line and in Manchester, Can I ask for your view on the science of the pandemic?

First let me show you this. This is a reel from a conference they had 2019 before the pandemic

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Agree, but do not agree.
Blindly accepting others explanations is useful at times. and not at other times.
The police and justice system deal with this all the time, and it takes an " impartial" audience to sort out the details, and even then they can be wrong.

The basis for most popular conspiracy theories is crackpot science and crackpot engineering based in ignorance. If there is a logical basis for an argument and we find general agreement among experts that something is wrong, fine, determine the facts. But what we find is that Joe Sixpack just dismisses anything he doesn't understand as some kind of plot. And instead of learning the facts they turn to, for example, a former meth head who makes pillows, while looking for a cure for Covid 19; while rejecting the advice of the medical community.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Your video won't play. Can you let me know the details?

Holiday Inn Express has a series of commercials playing on this idea. In one, a man stops a nuclear meltdown at a nuclear power plant, at the last moment. Everyone cheers but realizes they don't know who he is. He explains that he isn't a nuclear engineer. He was just with the tour group. But he stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

 

[nox]

The basis for most popular conspiracy theories is crackpot science and crackpot engineering based in ignorance. If there is a logical basis for an argument and we find general agreement among experts that something is wrong, fine, determine the facts. But what we find is that Joe Sixpack just dismisses anything he doesn't understand as some kind of plot. And instead of learning the facts they turn to, for example, a former meth head who makes pillows, while looking for a cure for Covid 19; while rejecting the advice of the medical community.

So what about the conspiracy theory about work being done to create animal human hybrids, this is now admitted. Or that the worlds most powerful individuals get together in the woods to do a mock sacrifice to moloch, this has been admitted. Or what about worlds most powerful individuals including politicians from many nations, tech giants etc get together for a few days to talk about things behind closed doors, (bilderberg meetings). As you see allot of things we dismissed as crazy conspiracy theories where totally factual. The latest one admitted is the new world order, also named the great reset. An actual quote is 2030 you will own nothing and be happy

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What about conspiracy facts?
Human animal chimeras
Cloned beef
The great reset
These all are verifiable facts

I remember spider goat being announced many years ago. And China is experimenting. What a shock! So what conspiracy?

Cloned beef? The FDA approved that 12 years ago. What conspiracy?

The great reset? I don't even know what you're talking about. You mean Hillary and her reset button? The world economic forum has the great reset as a topic to recover from Covid. But it is published information. So again, what conspiracy.

The one "conspiracy" I know about that was true was the claim of Area 51. The hard core UFO folks were claiming it existed over 20 years before anyone admitted it. I suspect most people here still thought it was bogus until I posted photos of it from Google Earth.

 

[nox]

I remember spider goat being announced many years ago. And China is experimenting. What a shock! So what conspiracy?

Cloned beef? The FDA approved that 12 years ago. What conspiracy?

The great reset? I don't even know what you're talking about. You mean Hillary and her reset button? The world economic forum has the great reset as a topic to recover from Covid. But it is published information. So again, what conspiracy.

The one "conspiracy" I know about that was true was the claim of Area 51. The hard core UFO folks were claiming it existed over 20 years before anyone admitted it.

This is my point all these things was dissmissed as crazy conspiracy theories until not long ago, even if they are well documented. Exactly right. Today conspiracy theorist is a slur against anyone who challange the status qoue and are to think media might be lying to us.

 

[hutchphd]

If one person is correct, and everyone else is wrong, does that one person suddenly become a conspirator if he/she goes about trying to convince others of the correctness of his belief/theory/ facts.

I would stand this on its head if I may. It seems to me that as soon as any "official mouthpiece" is deemed incorrect about anything, no matter how small, this is assumed immediately to be incontrovertible evidence of vast conspiracy. "But Fauci initially told us not to wear masks" "But the firemen told the people to shelter in place" "But where are the stars in the Lunar sky?" These people deserve to be heard, but not ad infinitum. Buzz Aldrin finally had the correct solution.
The sad part about this level of stupid is that power does in fact try to cover its hind parts when it screws up. One need only read Feynman's "What Do You Care What other People Think" to see the usual response. The workings of the Rogers Commission are a case study in CYA, yet thanks to several members the truth was aired. But far too often there is a conspiracy of silence requiring well informed people of conscience to act. Profiles in courage are perhaps rare (I'm not certain how rare...we only see the successful ones), but they are vital to invigorate the better angels of our collective soul. Sitting in Nancy Pelosi's chair in tribal costume is not such an act.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is my point all these things was dissmissed as crazy conspiracy theories until not long ago, even if they are well documented. Exactly right. Today conspiracy theorist is a slur against anyone who challange the status qoue and are to think media might be lying to us.

No, they are just claimed to be conspiracies through ignorance. It isn't a conspiracy just because you don't know about it. A favorite trick of the crackpot media is to misrepresent the facts and then claim something is some kind of big conspiracy, when in fact it is all above board.

Now if you want a real model for conspiracy theories, Alex Jones is your man. The dead children at Sandy Hook were really actors. There are human-fish babies being held in tanks. And the government created Covid 19 on purpose. But hey, the former president praised this guy and his work so who am I to say.

 

[nox]

No, they are just claimed to be conspiracies through ignorance. It isn't a conspiracy just because you don't know about it. A favorite trick of the crackpot media is to misrepresent the facts and then claim something is some kind of big conspiracy, when in fact it is all above board.

Now if you want a real model for conspiracy theories, Alex Jones is your man. The dead children at Sandy Hook were really actors. There are human-fish babies being held in tanks. And the government created Covid 19 on purpose. But hey, the former president praised this guy and his work so who am I to say.

That video i posted in this thread about event 201, i would be really interested what you think of it

 

[pinball1970]

First let me show you this. This is a reel from a conference they had 2019 before the pandemic

Rather than asking me to watch an 11 minute YouTube video, I would like to have your view on the pandemic.
Namely, Covid 19, what is it? How dangerous do you think it is?
Death numbers? Recovery?
The vaccines?

 

[hutchphd]

That video i posted in this thread about event 201, i would be really interested what you think of it

Its a representation of a (it is posted 4 March 2020) pandemic event involving a virus. Probably the most likely such event considering SARS and MERS had recently been thwarted.
What do you think of it?

 

[pinball1970]

That video i posted in this thread about event 201, i would be really interested what you think of it

The Brazil building seemed to collapse in on itself, straight.
You did not answer that particular point.
I will remind of your claim.
'Have we ever seen buildings collapse on itself from a fire after the fact?'

 

[aheight]

This is the article.

https://www.psypost.org/2021/07/new-study-indicates-conspiracy-theory-believers-have-less-developed-critical-thinking-ability-61347t

The article mentions the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test. The test involves analyzing a letter sent to the Moorburg newspaper about parking on streets in Moorburg:

In case readers missed it: The Moorburg letter. Interesting I thought.

 

[nox]

Rather than asking me to watch an 11 minute YouTube video, I would like to have your view on the pandemic.
Namely, Covid 19, what is it? How dangerous do you think it is?
Death numbers? Recovery?
The vaccines?

I showed you a video of a conference that where held a few months before a world wide pandemic, the conference was a training exercise for the exact same scenario that happened a few months later. I could go on for days, where it came from.
I mean there is no evidence that the mrna shot does anything other than creating asymptomatic cases, so people like me who is not in any risk group and been living life as normal for over a year has no reason at all to take the vaccine. I also find it disturbing people are so eager to take a mrna shot, they don't seem to understand what that technology can do to the body.

 

[nox]

The Brazil building seemed to collapse in on itself, straight.
You did not answer that particular point.
I will remind of your claim.
'Have we ever seen buildings collapse on itself from a fire after the fact?'

Again that was the first video i saw similar and i thanked for it, but still it collapsed different sections some straight and some to the side. If you look at the video of the 3 world war trade buildings, then you see they collapse in one swoop like the ground just gave way. my point is that the offcial narrative does not hold up

 

[nox]

Its a representation of a (it is posted 4 March 2020) pandemic event involving a virus. Probably the most likely such event considering SARS and MERS had recently been thwarted.
What do you think of it?

The original link got taken down, but this was originaly posted a few months before Covid was discovered in 2019. What i see is the same who, wef, bill and melinda gates foundation cdc, john hopkins etc. Held a wargame about what if the world gets taken over by a coronavirus, and then it happened a few months later, what are the odds.

 

[nox]

Its a representation of a (it is posted 4 March 2020) pandemic event involving a virus. Probably the most likely such event considering SARS and MERS had recently been thwarted.
What do you think of it?

Here is an video from the people who held the conference talking about it, seriously what are the odds

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is an video from the people who held the conference talking about it, seriously what are the odds

This wasn't the first Corona virus and they have been expecting more to hit sooner or later. As I understand it, they have had the mRNA technology on the shelf waiting for ten years. What you call a conspiracy is really just science working. Instead of buying into crackpot conspiracies, how about learning to appreciate the power of good science.

The vaccine is proving to be highly effective. Where I live we have over 70% vaccinated and the case load is down to almost zero. For us the pandemic is over provided that people who didn't get the vaccine don't incubate a mutation that will evade the vaccine again.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I mean there is no evidence that the mrna shot does anything other than creating asymptomatic cases,

Care to elaborate on that. We have great evidence that the vaccine works exceptionally well.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation...

 

[fresh_42]

I'm afraid that this topic indeed attracts conspiracy crackpots, but maybe we should stand our ground.

I liked especially the wording

What you call a conspiracy is really just science working. Instead of buying into crackpot conspiracies, how about learning to appreciate the power of good science.

The vaccine is proving to be highly effective.

The current mRNA vaccine from Pfizer-BionTech has better efficiency than our standard flu vaccines and covers even all currently known mutations as far as we can tell. And although being 'from the shelf' it took several months to develop it. Btw. by a rather small company (BionTech) that was already specialized in the field. The cooperation with Pfizer was primarily due to the fact that we needed large production capacities as well as established distribution channels. Since origin and profit is clearly decoupled, it would have been quite stupid for anyone to "plan an outbreak".

Thread is re-opened - on probation.

 

[BWV]

The Brazil building seemed to collapse in on itself, straight.
You did not answer that particular point.
I will remind of your claim.
'Have we ever seen buildings collapse on itself from a fire after the fact?'

If you heard a scraping sound, it was the goalposts sliding across the floor

 

[hutchphd]

No sense piling on.

 

[BWV]

 

[jack action]

I'm glad the thread is reopened and I was sad to see the direction it took. The subject of the thread is identifying the sources of conspiracy theory beliefs. I especially liked the fact that it began with a scientific paper. Debating if particular theories are true or not, or if science has the moral high ground should be out of this scope. Neither should we judge people who believe in those conspiracy theories.

First, we should agree on what is a conspiracy theory. From my earlier link, I like this definition:

Conspiracy theories are commonly defined as alternative explanations of past or current phenomena, which accuse a group of powerful individuals of acting in secret to achieve selfish, malevolent goals. [...] Most importantly, such conspiracy beliefs are consequential, that is, they are associated with several negative health-related, political and social attitudes and behaviors (e.g., reduced willingness to be vaccinated or to vote, increased willingness to use political violence; Imhoff et al., 2020; Jolley & Douglas, 2014a, b; Lamberty & Imhoff, 2018).

Now, back on topic for me.

Biggest problem I see is that non experts want to challenge anything and everything rather than asking questions.

But at who do you direct your questions when you do not trust the experts?

Rather than accepting that they are not experts and should therefore learn,

Learn from who? The people you don't trust?

they see themselves as superior to actual experts based on magical knowledge. They believe the average person is much smarter than the highly educated even in their field of expertise!

The little knowledge you have is better than knowledge from someone you don't trust, wouldn't you agree?

Again, this is not a question of arguing who is right or wrong. It is a question of who you trust or not.

Here is a slightly less jaundiced view than my previous: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/c...ence/zen-and-art-talking-conspiracy-theorists

I love this article. Slightly out of topic, but this is why I wish fewer threads should be closed on PF when faced with such subjects. Discussion is important to bring people together.

What should be avoided on PF:

Being told your favourite conspiracy theory is dumb, dangerous and nonsensical is unlikely to bring you to your senses. Them’s fighting words. Besides, breaking up with a conspiracy theory is, well, heartbreaking.

What should be encouraged on PF:

Using empathy, avoiding confrontations, and keeping the dialogue going can help

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But at who do you direct your questions when you do not trust the experts?

So anyone who is an "expert" is in a club? It may be that some group, like the scientists working for the tobacco industry, might falsify evidence related to the dangers of smoking. But to assume that every medical expert in the world is in on some grand conspiracy to perpetuate false information about smoking, is irrational. There are always experts you can turn to for qualified information.

Learn from who? The people you don't trust?

Again, that is irrational. For any given subject there are likely at least many thousands of people who can claim to be experts. They aren't all in on some grand conspiracy. To believe so is delusional and the best option is to get counseling. And while you can verify sources and publications, the average person is certainly not qualified to think they can do do-it-yourself science. They can either turn to experts, or they pretend to be experts and stay at a Holiday Inn, or turn to crackpots. Not a hard choice.

The little knowledge you have is better than knowledge from someone you don't trust, wouldn't you agree?

No. For complex issues, a little knowledge is as good as no knowledge. And trust issues involving all experts is a personal problem, not a scientific problem.

Again, this is not a question of arguing who is right or wrong. It is a question of who you trust or not.

It is a matter of recognizing that at most, conspiracies involve small groups of people, not every scientist in the world.

 

[fresh_42]

Again, that is irrational. For any given subject there are likely at least many thousands of people who can claim to be experts. They aren't all in on some grand conspiracy.

Funny side note: Isn't it strange, that even in a case where we had only a few experts, three or four at the time, who could understand Wiles' proof of FLT, nobody ever came up with a conspiracy theory?

Such effects apparently belong to the field of herd behavior.

 

[Evo]

But at who do you direct your questions when you do not trust the experts?Learn from who? The people you don't trust?The little knowledge you have is better than knowledge from someone you don't trust, wouldn't you agree?

Again, this is not a question of arguing who is right or wrong. It is a question of who you trust or not.

None of this makes any sense. Just because you don't "trust" someone does NOT make them wrong, and just because you DO "trust" someone does NOT make them right.

You may trust some insane person spreading rumors that half of the government is actually child eating, Satan worshipping, sex trafficking pedophiles. Does the fact that you trust in that person make them correct? And why don't you trust the scientist that has a proven track record of honesty and accuracy, and been published and peer reviewed? How does your lack of trust make them wrong?

 

[Bandersnatch]

None of this makes any sense. Just because you don't "trust" someone does NOT make them wrong, and just because you DO "trust" someone does NOT make them right.

You may trust some insane person spreading rumors that half of the government is actually child eating, Satan worshipping, sex trafficking pedophiles. Does the fact that you trust in that person make them correct? And why don't you trust the scientist that has a proven track record of honesty and accuracy, and been published and peer reviewed? How does your lack of trust make them wrong?

Jack (he may correct me if I'm misinterpreting) seems to be concerned about effective communication here. He tries to get into one's mind to pinpoint what does and doesn't work when trying to arrive at a view of reality everyone can agree with. He does not advocate the position of a crank. Rather, he wants you all to try and engage with the human holding it, instead of professing that it doesn't warrant your time. One can do the latter when there is little risk of damage to the society, i.e. when the crackpots are scarce in a population, but not when there is a looming risk.
Like, we probably shouldn't ignore pro-epidemics or the 'global warming is a hoax' crowd, but we can mostly ignore the moon landing hoaxers or the flat earthers (even that is debatable, considering the propensity for cross-fertilization among the conspiracy theories).
This issue has been affecting tangible political outcomes for a long time, long before Covid. So let's try and understand why other people might think what they think, without dismissing them as stupid. It's the only way to actually changing their minds.

The main point here is that once a person loses trust in an institution (for whatever reason, good or bad, including being manipulated), it makes little sense to try and convince them to change their mind by using the authority of the same group they no longer see as authoritative. This, I think, is what is being challenged, not whether the view of an expert is correct or not.

 

[Averagesupernova]

But at who do you direct your questions when you do not trust the experts

Yourself. As in what reason do you have for not trusting? Do a little research and you will likely come up with an answer that you didn't want. Something that most conspiracy nuts are unable or unwilling to do.

 

[DennisN]

@jack action and others who are interested in the psychology of conspiracy theories:

I posted a BBC article I found very interesting last year in the first post in this thread which was about the psychology and possible reasons behind conspiracy theories.

What we can learn from conspiracy theories (BBC, 25th May 2020)
http://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200522-what-we-can-learn-from-conspiracy-theories
"From political upheavals to anxieties about sex, technology and women, it turns out conspiracy theories can tell us a lot about what’s going on in our societies – and how to fix them."

Partly it makes the case that fears lay dormant in people's minds, and certain events (e.g. unusual, dramatic) can trigger those fears and spiral into conspiracy theory territory.

I just wanted to share the article here in case people interested in this haven't seen it.