Conspiracy theories and why people judge so quickly.

[Theweirdtophat]

I never really understand why people automatically think conspiracy theorists are nuts. No I don't think every conspiracy is 100% accurate but I think a lot of them to have thought provoking truth to them. Of course people are quick to call people crazy when they question their government's motives, as if that's a bad thing to do nowadays. Or act as if it's implausible for groups who want to take over the world. Yeah because nobody in history attempted to take over the world, right? Not the Nazi's Roman's British or anyone who had obtained a huge empire and continued to expand.

Or they act as if its crazy for the notion of having a government who doesn't have your interest. Like, if any of them become corrupt and start acting oppressive even the masses will act as if you're crazy for thinking the government would betray you? Because never as there been a government that's acted oppressive, I guess. Even when it's obvious they're being oppressive people will say "Well it's for our safety and the government said so, so I guess it's true." It just bothers me that they put that label on you whenever you're questioning something.

Of course even great scientists and philosophers were once called crazy and quite a few were right. The way I see it is, people will just end calling you crazy anyway. You may be right on your theories but people will call you that because you're theories and ideas or even their evidence or downright proof will go over their head and doesn't compute with their perception of reality and they'll call you crazy because they don't what else to call you. People just seem to throw that word around nowadays.

I don't think it's fair to call conspiracy theorists "nuts" or anything, without even paying heed to what they are saying.

 

[Bokonon]

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Sunstone]

Conspiracy theorists are not nuts because they suspect conspiracies per se, but because they are immune to reason and evidence that contradicts their "theories", and because they often enough make up and distort facts.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Conspiracy theorists are not nuts because they suspect conspiracies per se, but because they are immune to reason and evidence that contradicts their "theories", and because they often enough make up and distort facts.

I still don't understand why people think they make this up. Government have been known to betray the public but for some reason people think that a group run by bankers (And believe me they have a lot of power.) Don't you know that he who controls the money controls the world? Why is it implausible? Even when they do provide evidence about untested vaccines being mandatory in America, (And people suffering from side effects) or providing evidence about 9/11 or Roswell or anything they still don't bother to listen. That's what I don't get.

Apparently you'd have to be crazy to assume you're own government would purposely make you stupid due to GMO food, radiation treatments, untested vaccines or drugs ect. Don't you know that people have become slowly dumbed down and education isn't nearly as good as it once was 100 or even 50 years ago? Don't you think a dumbed down population would be easier to control?

What about Roswell and the aliens. Well that's a no brainer. If they kept an alien and the technology they are the only ones that have that technology, don't you think that'd give them the advantage? Don't you ever wonder why governments are so secretive about things? Knowledge is power. If I know something you don't know, I have more power.

Is every government corrupt? No, but a lot of them have their own agendas and if you give attention to these theories a lot of it is common sense.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah, it's a knee-jerk reaction that is tiresome. There are nutters to be sure in the conspiracy world, but not all of them are.

 

[Sunstone]

I still don't understand why people think they make this up. Government have been known to betray the public but for some reason people think that a group run by bankers (And believe me they have a lot of power.) Don't you know that he who controls the money controls the world? Why is it implausible? Even when they do provide evidence about untested vaccines being mandatory in America, (And people suffering from side effects) or providing evidence about 9/11 or Roswell or anything they still don't bother to listen. That's what I don't get.

Apparently you'd have to be crazy to assume you're own government would purposely make you stupid due to GMO food, radiation treatments, untested vaccines or drugs ect. Don't you know that people have become slowly dumbed down and education isn't nearly as good as it once was 100 or even 50 years ago? Don't you think a dumbed down population would be easier to control?

What about Roswell and the aliens. Well that's a no brainer. If they kept an alien and the technology they are the only ones that have that technology, don't you think that'd give them the advantage? Don't you ever wonder why governments are so secretive about things? Knowledge is power. If I know something you don't know, I have more power.

Is every government corrupt? No, but a lot of them have their own agendas and if you give attention to these theories a lot of it is common sense.

Your notion that conspiracy nuts should be believed because governments are capable of deception is the sort of sloppy reasoning that justly gives the nuts a bad reputation. The fact that governments deceive people is not logically sufficient grounds to argue that wildly speculative and poorly founded conspiracy theories are plausible.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Your notion that conspiracy nuts should be believed because governments are capable of deception is the sort of sloppy reasoning that justly gives the nuts a bad reputation. The fact that governments deceive people is not logically sufficient grounds to argue that wildly speculative and poorly founded conspiracy theories are plausible.

Your notion of thinking that they have nothing better to do than just make up stories for no reason is rather shoddy reasoning. The "nuts" as you put it attempt to put evidence out which people still refuse to accept either because as I said, it doesn't fit with their realm of reality or they'll just refuse it because it's not what they WANT to believe and that it's much easier and preferable to do as your told rather than think for yourself. Because that takes effort.

There will be times where people will call you nuts and a crazy conspiracy theorist for questioning the government and not even coming up with any "theories" so to speak. I know, because I've dealt with that myself and others as well. So when people say "government in this country are fooling us and here's how" and yet they're still called crazy even though we should know by now that lots of governments have tricked people in the past. Could care to explain that?

Some don't provide evidence but when they do, they're still ridiculed. You act as if they all go around the street and shout these theories and they expect to be heard without having to provide evidence. That's not true and quite a few have provided evidence via film, t.v. books, any kind of media really.. But it seems like nothing outside undeniable proof will get people to understand and even then that's not a guarantee because as I said some people will just refuse to believe something because they weren't taught and raised to believe that. It doesn't fit with their perception of reality and way of life, so they just refuse it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'd settle for ordinary evidence.

One funny thing I notice. Many of the people I know who dis conspiracy theorists are perfectly confident in the conspiracies they themselves believe.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not sure this is even a matter of conspiracy theorists, specifically. Being capable of rapid judgement is an ingrained part of human psychology. We all judge quickly, using various cognitive shorthands called heuristics. It's necessary for our survival as a species. If a person has a particular schema about conspiracy theorists that is predominantly negative, when that topic is mentioned, their heuristics will kick in and they'll dismiss it. The suspension of heuristics, or critical thinking, is not the default manner by which our brains operate. It needs to be prompted and trained.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm not sure this is even a matter of conspiracy theorists, specifically. Being capable of rapid judgement is an ingrained part of human psychology. We all judge quickly, using various cognitive shorthands called heuristics. It's necessary for our survival as a species. If a person has a particular schema about conspiracy theorists that is predominantly negative, when that topic is mentioned, their heuristics will kick in and they'll dismiss it. The suspension of heuristics, or critical thinking, is not the default manner by which our brains operate. It needs to be prompted and trained.

I like this very much, Quinty. That said though, there is a certain mindset that entertains conspiracy theories over and real evidence. One of my favorites is about the super secret Illuminati and the Bilderburgs. (sp?), in that these two are so super secret, but that a given theorist has "cracked the code" as it were. It can be amusing, but the reasoning is often laughable.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I never really understand why people automatically think conspiracy theorists are nuts.

Partly because that's what being "nuts" is defined as: believing something to be true that almost everyone else regards as obviously or clearly wrong. Partly because of the reason that people regarded as holding crazy ideas/notions are regarded so is that they have intricate explanations involving lots of assumptions and little evidence with no good reason. Partly because there's an inverse relationship between how shocking, earth-shattering, or otherwise incredibly important with widespread consequences something is and how hard it is to contain this information from spreading. And partly most people believe something that's rather out there and perhaps the ability to see the extremes that others goes to helps them feel like rational, reasonable individuals.

Of course people are quick to call people crazy when they question their government's motives

I don't think I've ever met anybody who didn't do this.

Or act as if it's implausible for groups who want to take over the world.

It's not implausible. it's just that there's a reason it didn't take long for people to figure someone was trying to conquer the known world: legions of troops at your front door tends to be a bit of a get away.

Not the Nazi's Roman's British or anyone who had obtained a huge empire and continued to expand.

They all continued to expand for a while, that's true. Of course, everybody knew this. There's only so long you can keep sending tanks, troops, and planes into other countries while telling everybody it's just a drill.

Of course even great scientists and philosophers were once called crazy and quite a few were right.

And many were wrong. In neither case is it relevant. This is the first time I've ever actually referred to this fallacy before another's brought it up (inaccurately), but that's an appeal to authority. Kurt Gödel was a genius, and probably the best logician who ever lived. He believed people were trying to poison him and would only trust his wife to prepare his food. When she went to the hospital after taking ill, he reasoned that, as food prepared by others were likely poisoned it was safer to wait it out and hope his wife returned before it was too late. He died of starvation despite the abundance of food. The fact that he was a genius logician didn't stop him from reasoning himself to death.

I don't think it's fair to call conspiracy theorists "nuts" or anything, without even paying heed to what they are saying.

True.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I never really understand why people automatically think conspiracy theorists are nuts. No I don't think every conspiracy is 100% accurate but I think a lot of them to have thought provoking truth to them. Of course people are quick to call people crazy when they question their government's motives, as if that's a bad thing to do nowadays. Or act as if it's implausible for groups who want to take over the world. Yeah because nobody in history attempted to take over the world, right? Not the Nazi's Roman's British or anyone who had obtained a huge empire and continued to expand.

Or they act as if its crazy for the notion of having a government who doesn't have your interest. Like, if any of them become corrupt and start acting oppressive even the masses will act as if you're crazy for thinking the government would betray you? Because never as there been a government that's acted oppressive, I guess. Even when it's obvious they're being oppressive people will say "Well it's for our safety and the government said so, so I guess it's true." It just bothers me that they put that label on you whenever you're questioning something.

Of course even great scientists and philosophers were once called crazy and quite a few were right. The way I see it is, people will just end calling you crazy anyway. You may be right on your theories but people will call you that because you're theories and ideas or even their evidence or downright proof will go over their head and doesn't compute with their perception of reality and they'll call you crazy because they don't what else to call you. People just seem to throw that word around nowadays.

I don't think it's fair to call conspiracy theorists "nuts" or anything, without even paying heed to what they are saying.

Part of it is that most conspiracy theories fall flat in actual evidence and this upsets individuals. When people become "vested" in these theories is when they become "nuts". I have opinions about certain things in the past that are often considered conspiracy theories. I don't hold them as beliefs of truth however.

I don't think that the JFK Assassination was anywhere near as conclusive as history would like us to believe. Most of it doesn't add up and there is a good number of people who accept this but I don't believe that it was "so and so or such and such".

I laugh at people who think we didn't land on the moon however. This is just nuts. The amount of contrary evidence is staggering and it was even on mythbusters who busted it with empirical evidence.