Crank Magnetism

[Sunstone]

I've got a "theory" about these nut cases. They are often intelligent, or even very intelligent, people in technical matters. In technical matters, such as engineering or mechanics, they can see for themselves the direct consequences of adopting a false or misleading idea. And it matters to them to get such matters right, if that's their line of work, or if that's a deeply felt interest of theirs. But once they depart from whatever technical area is their deeply felt interest, or on which their livelihood depends, they are out of their water. For some reason, they don't apply the same rules of evidence to UFOs, etc that they do to fixing an automobile.

In other words, they are realists when it comes to something on which their self-interests hang, but cranks on other things.

I don't think that explains all the cranks I know, but it sure describes some of them.

 

[Revoltingest]

A young-earth creationist, 9/11 truther, anti-vaxxer and moon landing denier walk into a bar. They are all the same person.
Why does it seem like if you're talking to a person who believes in some form of quackery, it's very likely they subscribe to *multiple* forms of quackery?
Do quack ideas have a common aspect that are appealing to some people's predispositions?

I've noticed something similar among my fundie friends who lean towards conspiracies. (Yes, they're a useful &
entertaining bunch, even if we do disagree about some of the most fundamental thingies.) They see all morality
& meaning as being handed down from a central authority, ie, God. They also see all the world's evils as having
a singular source, eg, Satan, Islam (which is a tool of Satan), foreign communists. You & I would see societal
phenomena as emergent properties of a complex stochastic system, with no single cause of anything...just
complicated relationships. People can sure have greatly different ways of understanding things, eh?

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

A young-earth creationist, 9/11 truther, anti-vaxxer and moon landing denier walk into a bar. They are all the same person.

Why does it seem like if you're talking to a person who believes in some form of quackery, it's very likely they subscribe to *multiple* forms of quackery?

Do quack ideas have a common aspect that are appealing to some people's predispositions?

Does this pass the quack test, .. I mean the duck test.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, then its probably a duck (i.e. a quack).

 

[Quintessence]

Well, one study doesn't make for a meta analysis, but the one Meow Mix linked to does provide some significant correlations.

It got me wondering how the issue is connected to the anti-science and anti-authority current running through segments of American culture. I've observed that there are some people who have a general mistrust of authority, including (or especially) scientific authority, and that could predispose them to subscribe to any number of quack conspiracy theories.

The role of the internet in all of this isn't to be underestimated, and that's something the article brought out. For a while, I participated in another web forum that catered to "spiritual" interests. It was literally against the rules of this board to "disrespect" opinions. This meant you were not allowed to express disagreement - even gentle, civilized disagreement - with an opinion that is factually wrong or unsupported. The site silences perspectives that question their nutty nonsense, which allows the quackery to be further fostered and perpetuated. The quackery maintains itself in these small, isolated internet communities that feed each other and smack down any dissenting ideas.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

A young-earth creationist, 9/11 truther, anti-vaxxer and moon landing denier walk into a bar. They are all the same person.

Why does it seem like if you're talking to a person who believes in some form of quackery, it's very likely they subscribe to *multiple* forms of quackery?

Do quack ideas have a common aspect that are appealing to some people's predispositions?

Fundamentally, think of it as an extension of gossiping.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, one study doesn't make for a meta analysis, but the one Meow Mix linked to does provide some significant correlations.

It got me wondering how the issue is connected to the anti-science and anti-authority current running through segments of American culture. I've observed that there are some people who have a general mistrust of authority, including (or especially) scientific authority, and that could predispose them to subscribe to any number of quack conspiracy theories.

Let's not discount those of us with a strong scientific background who distrust authority. "Authority" is often wrong.
I've found technical errors from Scientific American to Wikipedia, & provided corrections. Moreover, the "authority" is
often just another flawed human who takes charge or proffers expertise. Mistakes happen. Question everything.

 

[Quintessence]

Keep in mind by authority I mean those with expertise. You know, the people who actually know what they're talking about because they're learned in the area. Constantly questioning the relevant experts/authorities in a subject area because one chooses to hold them to unrealistic expectations of perfection is counterproductive at best, idiotic at worst. These slogans of "question everything" and "question authority" are moronic simplifications that feed into exactly the sort of quackery we're talking about in this thread. It gives them an excuse to ignore the actual authorities on a topic or issue and make up their own collective BS that disregards the facts and the evidence. Encourage critical thinking, not simplistic slogans like that.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Actually 'question everything' is fundamental to the progress of science.

The difficulty is ensuring that such questioning is based on skepticism not cynicism.

 

[Quintessence]

I suppose in a fashion, my problem is with semantics. I think "question everything" is a terrible phrase because everything means everything without any exceptions whatsoever. You can't do anything in life with that much doubtfulness, never mind something like science, which always builds upon previous literature during its inquiries. "Is this chair I'm sitting in really here? Should I eat today? Are my parents really my biological ones? Is the moon really not made of cheese?" That's where the nonsense of "question everything" gets you. Again, encourage critical thinking or "ask questions" not the absurd "question everything" that often does so just for the sake of rebellion or to be obstinate and difficult.

 

[Revoltingest]

I suppose in a fashion, my problem is with semantics. I think "question everything" is a terrible phrase because everything means everything without any exceptions whatsoever. You can't do anything in life with that much doubtfulness, never mind something like science, which always builds upon previous literature during its inquiries. "Is this chair I'm sitting in really here? Should I eat today? Are my parents really my biological ones? Is the moon really not made of cheese?" That's where the nonsense of "question everything" gets you. Again, encourage critical thinking or "ask questions" not the absurd "question everything" that often does so just for the sake of rebellion or to be obstinate and difficult.

Keep in mind by authority I mean those with expertise. You know, the people who actually know what they're talking about because they're learned in the area. Constantly questioning the relevant experts/authorities in a subject area because one chooses to hold them to unrealistic expectations of perfection is counterproductive at best, idiotic at worst. These slogans of "question everything" and "question authority" are moronic simplifications that feed into exactly the sort of quackery we're talking about in this thread. It gives them an excuse to ignore the actual authorities on a topic or issue and make up their own collective BS that disregards the facts and the evidence. Encourage critical thinking, not simplistic slogans like that.

No, you're taking exhortations to question things far too literally (& simplistically).
Think of at as having continual healthy skepticism. Even experts can be wrong.

A good example is this fella, who challenged conventional thought by the experts, & overturned the apple cart.
Barry Marshall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Slogans by their nature are brief & pithy, so they aren't literal & won't address all possibilities. A reader
should glean the intended meaning. Consider the old carpenter's saying "Measure twice. Cut once.".
The point is that it's more efficient to verify that which is easily verified a couple times,
before doing something irreversible, such as cutting an expensive board too short.
What it does not mean....
"Measure only twice....even if you need to measure it again. Only twice is allowed.
Then cut the board once. If it's too long, then tough luck....you can't cut it again."

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not a fan of slogans, sayings, and proverbs in general. I'm especially not a fan of them when they choose words poorly, because people can and do take them literally and simplistically. There are far better ways to phrase a general attitude of critical thinking and asking questions that more accurately describes what you're doing. Poetic hyperbole aside, I prefer people to say what they actually mean instead of glitz it up as something it is not. Call it a personal preference for clear communication of ideas.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not a fan of slogans, sayings, and proverbs in general. I'm especially not a fan of them when they choose words poorly, because people can and do take them literally and simplistically. There are far better ways to phrase a general attitude of critical thinking and asking questions that more accurately describes what you're doing. Poetic hyperbole aside, I prefer people to say what they actually mean instead of glitz it up as something it is not. Call it a personal preference for clear communication of ideas.

Hah! You're a pedant!

Some of my favorite sayings:
- S*** happens.
- No matter where you go, there you are.
- Take time to stop & smell the bacon.....er, flowers.
- No good deed goes unpunished.
- It's always something.
- Anything that can happen will happen.
- There's never enuf time to do something right the first time, but there's unlimited time to fix it after it goes wrong.
- The hurrier I go, the behinder I get.
- Question authority.
- You get what you pay for.

These must be really burning your biscuits, grinding your gears, & making that big vein on your forehead pulsate.

 

[Quintessence]

Not really. People leaving their dirty dishes in the sink in communal living situations is far more irritating.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not really. People leaving their dirty dishes in the sink in communal living situations is far more irritating.

That goes without saying!

Cleanliness is next to godlessness....or something like that.

 

[Penumbra]

I've got a "theory" about these nut cases. They are often intelligent, or even very intelligent, people in technical matters. In technical matters, such as engineering or mechanics, they can see for themselves the direct consequences of adopting a false or misleading idea. And it matters to them to get such matters right, if that's their line of work, or if that's a deeply felt interest of theirs. But once they depart from whatever technical area is their deeply felt interest, or on which their livelihood depends, they are out of their water. For some reason, they don't apply the same rules of evidence to UFOs, etc that they do to fixing an automobile.

In other words, they are realists when it comes to something on which their self-interests hang, but cranks on other things.

I don't think that explains all the cranks I know, but it sure describes some of them.

^This is basically how I've seen it so far.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

I suppose in a fashion, my problem is with semantics. I think "question everything" is a terrible phrase because everything means everything without any exceptions whatsoever. You can't do anything in life with that much doubtfulness, never mind something like science, which always builds upon previous literature during its inquiries. "Is this chair I'm sitting in really here? Should I eat today? Are my parents really my biological ones? Is the moon really not made of cheese?" That's where the nonsense of "question everything" gets you. Again, encourage critical thinking or "ask questions" not the absurd "question everything" that often does so just for the sake of rebellion or to be obstinate and difficult.

I agree.

Question Everything is like questioning (or asking) where pig skins come from.

There is only so much that can said about someone who doubts a subject or has mass hysteria.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Quack Alert! Quack Alert! Quack Alert!

Did someone already mention that some people are Quacks!

Could anyone possibly imagine what the world would be like without quacks?

I'm sure it would be boring, and even dull at times. Even Quacks need to have something to look forward too.

 

[The Hammer]

Didn't read the whole thread, only the first page. But the OP made me jump immediately to my dealings with Mark Dice/John Connor (whatever he is calling himself these days). Anyone else deal with this guy or listen to him before... He is insane haha.

 

[painted wolf]

Because once you convince yourself that a conspiracy that involves major aspects of the culture and tens of thousands of participants.... then every conspiracy is possible.

Doctors cover up cures to diseases
Scientists cover up evolution
Government covers up 9-11, sandy hook
Media conspires to turn us all atheist, gay... whatever
Banks conspire to rule the world.

wa:do