The need to find order in a confusing world...

It seems that every family has an Uncle John Rose—the guy who goes on and on about conspiracy theories at the holiday dinner table. The 9/11 attack was orchestrated by the government. The moon landing was filmed in Hollywood. Oswald did not act alone in the Kennedy assassination. And don’t get me started on global warming. Record low temperatures this Christmas, and you expect me to believe the world is actually getting warmer? Give me a break.

Maybe we should give Uncle John Rose a break, or at least try to understand where he’s coming from. Why do some people believe in conspiracy theories anyway? This is exactly the question posed by British psychologist Karen Douglas and her colleagues in a recent article in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science.

The researchers found that reasons for believing in conspiracy theories can be grouped into three categories:

The desire for understanding and certainty
The desire for control and security
The desire to maintain a positive self-image

Let’s look at each of these motives in turn.

The desire for understanding and certainty. Seeking explanations for events is a natural human desire. We’re constantly asking why things happen the way they do. Why does it have to rain the day I want to go out? Why did she give me the cold shoulder like that? Why can’t you understand what I’m trying to tell you?

And we don’t just ask questions. We also quickly find answers to those questions—not necessarily the true answers, but rather answers that comfort us or that fit into our worldview. It’s raining because I always have the worst luck. She gave me the cold shoulder because she can’t stand it when she doesn’t get her way. You can’t understand what I’m saying because you’re just not listening.

We all harbor false beliefs, that is, things we believe to be true but in fact are not. For example, if you believe Sydney is the capital of Australia, you’re the victim of a false belief. But once you’re confronted with the fact Canberra is the capital of Australia, you’ll readily change your mind. After all, you were simply misinformed, and you’re not emotionally invested in it.

Conspiracy theories are also false beliefs, by definition. But people who believe in them have a vested interest in maintaining them. First, they’ve put some effort into understanding the conspiracy-theory explanation for the event, whether by reading books, going to web sites, or watching TV programs that support their beliefs. Uncertainty is an unpleasant state, and conspiracy theories provide a sense of understanding and certainty that is comforting.

The desire for control and security. People need to feel they’re in control of their lives. For instance, many people feel safer when they’re the driver in the car rather than a passenger. Of course, even the best drivers can get into accidents for reasons beyond their control.

Likewise, conspiracy theories can give their believers a sense of control and security. This is especially true when the alternative account feels threatening. For example, if global temperatures are rising catastrophically due to human activity, then I’ll have to make painful changes to my comfortable lifestyle. But if pundits and politicians assure me that global warming is a hoax, then I can maintain my current way of living. This kind of motivated reasoning is an important component in conspiracy theory beliefs.

The desire to maintain a positive self-image. Research shows that people who feel SOCIALLY MARGINALIZED are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. We all have a desire to maintain a positive self-image, which usually comes from the roles we play in life—our jobs and our relationships with family and friends. When we know we make a positive difference in the lives of others—as parent, spouse, friend, teacher or mentor—we see our own lives as worthwhile, and we feel good about ourselves.

But say Uncle Joe is on disability and hasn’t worked in years. He feels socially excluded. However, he does have plenty of time to surf the internet for information about conspiracy theories, and he can chat online with others who hold similar beliefs. Thus, belief in conspiracy theories gives Uncle Joe a sense of community.

Furthermore, his research into conspiracy theories has given him a sense that he is the holder of privileged knowledge. Most people who believe global warming is real or that vaccines are safe don’t do so because they understand the science. Rather, they trust the experts. And so, when Uncle Joe starts trotting out all the “evidence” against global warming, it can be difficult to make a reasonable counterargument. All you’ve got is the feeling that the conspiracy theory seems too complicated to be true, but from Uncle Joe’s perspective, it’s clear he knows more about the subject than you do.

In sum, we have a good understanding of what motivates people to believe in conspiracy theories. That is, they do so because of three basic needs we all have: to understand the world around us, to feel secure and in control, and to maintain a positive self-image. But do conspiracy-theory beliefs actually help people satisfy these needs?

Studies have found that when college students are exposed to conspiracy theories, they show an increased sense of insecurity. This has led some researchers to conclude that conspiracy-theory belief is self-defeating. However, as Douglas and her colleagues point out, most college students have little motivation to believe in conspiracy theories in the first place. What’s really needed, they argue, are some carefully designed studies that directly examine those who already believe in conspiracy theories.

Regardless of the outcome of these future studies, the real question for us now is how to deal with the Uncle John Rose in our life. You may offer counterevidence in an attempt convince him to give up his conspiracy theories, but you’re unlikely to succeed. This is because you’re arguing facts, while Uncle Joe is defending his sense of security and his positive feelings about himself. And for all of us, self-image trumps facts every time.

Uh, that's a bunch of BS.

A while ago the libs started giving 'conspiracy theories' a bad name and assigning the belief in 'conspiracy theories' to 'the right'. Like it's a bad thing. When it's not - it's just smart to question 'the official story' and politicians and government and what the Mainstream Media tells us to believe.

And 'conspiracy theories' are subjective. There is no settled science on global warming, for example.

To the libs, that vaccines are "bad" for babies is a conspiracy theory.
To the libs, global warming is real.
To the libs, there is no such thing as geo-engineering, spraying whatnot into the atmosphere.
To the libs, 911 happened exactly like the government told us. Not to mention the bogus 'war on terror', etc., etc.
Yeah, the Kennedy assassination, Chappaquiddick - all those official story are suspect.

People who don't believe in conspiracy theories that the government tells us to believe are 'Statists'.

*****

And this bit:

The desire for understanding and certainty
The desire for control and security
The desire to maintain a positive self-image

No, it's a desire for "The Truth".

Desire for control - that's nonsense. Desire for security I can see. Knowing the Truth will make you feel more secure.

And that 'desire to maintain a positive self-image' is a bunch of lib speak. The libs are all about psychology of course.

This part -

"The desire to maintain a positive self-image. Research shows that people who feel SOCIALLY MARGINALIZED are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories."

- that's a bunch of crap.

Now again, here's some 'common sense' from the right -

Elites Link Anti-Government Thought to Mental Illness, Lay Groundwork for Incarceration

[www.thedailybell.com]

We are seeing an increasing number of academic studies analyzing the psychology behind “conspiracy theorists” and those who question government propaganda. The idea being that people who don’t trust government may be mentally ill.

These analyses are published in prominent publications in the UK and are building a “scientific” literature revolving psychological dysfunction and “conspiracy theory.”

The article goes on to explain that researchers at the University of Kent have used online studies from hundreds of people to generate the study’s conclusions.

The findings appeared in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science with the suggestion that those who adopt conspiracy theories have “outwardly inflated self-confidence” but may be “overcompensating for a lack of belief in themselves.”

At the time, we commented on Grimes’s apparent “earnestness” in struggling to “understand how people can even engage in conspiratorial thinking to begin with.” We made this comment in relationship to yet a third article on the psychology of conspiracy.

This commentary appeared in the Guardian and, as we pointed out, “argued against conspiratorial thinking based on a new book, Suspicious Minds … written by Rob Brotherton.”

Basically, the idea is that people are naturally prone to conspiracy theories because of the way their brains have evolved. “Identifying patterns and being sensitive to possible threats,” the article explains, “is what has helped us survive in a world where nature often is out to get you.”

Brotherton explains in the article that he decided that the best way to present his thesis was to avoid confronting conspiracy theories head on. Instead, he wanted to explain how people adopted such theories for psychological reasons.

“I wanted to take a different approach, to sidestep the whole issue of whether the theories are true or false and come at it from the perspective of psychology. The intentionality bias, the proportionality bias, confirmation bias. We have these quirks built into our minds that can lead us to believe weird things without realising that’s why we believe them.”

So here we have three explanations of conspiracy theories presented by major publications in less than three month’s time. And, who knows, perhaps there were more.

In the conclusion to our Grimes’ analysis, we noted that: “It looks as if a more powerful and disciplined program may be underway. Something to ponder along with a further moderation of certain public declarations.”

By “public declarations” we meant those of individuals prone to mentioning conspiracy theories in non-appropriate contexts. As it turns out, we anticipated the current news cycle only by a couple of months.

Just this week, in fact, Attorney General Loretta Lynch attended a Senate Judiciary Hearing and acknowledged discussions at the Department of Justice of taking civil action against “climate change deniers.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) questioned her on the issue and drew comparisons between such deniers and the tobacco industry that claimed for decades that the tobacco was not proven to cause ill health.

The Clinton administration eventually brought a successful civil suit against Big Tobacco. And Whitehouse suggested that civil or criminal charges might be brought against “anti-warmists.”

The forces of intolerance are gathering in the US, just as overseas.

We have urged in the past that people pay close attention to these growing trends. By turning statements of opinion into a psychological condition they are trying to discredit anyone who speaks out against the government.

In the Soviet Union, people who spoke out against government policies were often placed in mental asylums. At the time, concerned citizens in the West protested such incarcerations as barbaric abuses. Yet now, if our supposition is correct, these practices are about to expand in the West as well.

Conclusion: This attack on dissent is serious. Educate your family and friends about what’s going on. Do not be fooled by their propaganda, but beware of the risks of speaking out too freely.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

Just as important in fostering conspiracies is a desire to be special or different — and that’s a need that cuts across demographic lines. In a study published in May 2017 in the European Journal of Social Psychology, provocatively titled “Too Special to Be Duped,” subjects either took a survey designed to measure their desire for uniqueness or wrote an essay on the importance of independent thought. By significant margins, those who tested high on the need to be special or were primed to feel that way by writing the essay were also more inclined to believe in various conspiracy theories.

“A small part in motivating the endorsement of…irrational beliefs,” the researchers wrote, “is the desire to stick out from the crowd.”

That partly explains why evidence that refutes the theories rarely changes any conspiracy theorists’ minds, since surrendering the belief means surrendering the specialness too.

Why Piling On Facts May Not Help In The Battle Against Fake News [www.npr.org]

Quote

There have actually been a number of experiments over the years, Rachel, that suggest that information often doesn't drive misinformation out of circulation. In fact, it can sometimes amplify the effects of misinformation and fake news. There was a recent study that provided information about climate change to both believers and skeptics. Volunteers were told that there was a new consensus among scientists that either contradicted or supported their pre-existing beliefs.

Tali Sharot, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London, and her colleagues Cass Sunstein, Sebastian Bobadilla-Suarez and Stephanie Lazzaro - they found something interesting. When people heard information that confirmed their pre-existing views, those opinions were strengthened. But when people received information that contradicted what they believed, they simply dismissed the information. Sharot says this explains why more information often doesn't produce the effects we expect.

So it is a personal choice.
We choose to be open minded or close minded.
That is why arguing does not help.
People have their mind made up already.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2018 02:08PM by RawPracticalist.

The main reason I brought this up was because of John Roses latest video where he posed 2 questions of how you can evaluate an individual:
1-Do you trust your doctor for non-emergency procedures?
2-Do you believe the official story of 9-11?

The second question is completely in left field compared to trusting your doctor it's practically incoherent in my opinion.

That's personally why I find it pointless to focus on ARGUABLE PHENOMENON things WE cannot prove like the Holocaust, did we go to the moon, chemtrails, JFK and on and on, DIVIDING distractions at best.

Let's instead focus OUR attention on UNARGUABLE PHENOMENON like the fact that this small speck of dust that WE all inhabit is traveling around the LIFE-GIVING SUN/LIGHT that makes OUR LIFE possible in the first place.

(Of course unless you believe in FLAT EARTH?!?!?)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2018 03:37PM by NuNativs.

Quote
RawPracticalist

So it is a personal choice.
We choose to be open minded or close minded.
That is why arguing does not help.
People have their mind made up already.

I would say the people who believe the 'official story' are close-minded and those who question the official story are open-minded. Those who are open to other theories - what the left calls 'conspiracy theories' - are open-minded.

Quote
NuNativs

That's personally why I find it pointless to focus on ARGUABLE PHENOMENON things WE cannot prove like the Holocaust, did we go to the moon, chemtrails, JFK and on and on, DIVIDING distractions at best.

Let's instead focus OUR attention on UNARGUABLE PHENOMENON like the fact that this small speck of dust that WE all inhabit is traveling around the LIFE-GIVING SUN/LIGHT that makes OUR LIFE possible in the first place.

That makes sense and sounds like a nice way to go on, but what would you talk about in regular conversation. Isn't almost everything not provable. What are some examples of what you would discuss or comment on for Unarguable Phenomenon?

Even if you say - "I like that it gets dark later in the day now," someone else is going to say - "I don't like that it stays light so late because ..." and you're in a difference of opinion.

Someone says, "This spring weather is perfect," and someone else will say, "No, it's too cold; summer if better." And you're in a disagreement because it's subjective. I don't understand what you mean.

Would you explain what you mean by UNARGUABLE PHENOMENON - the word "Phenomenon" in that concept. Some examples.

> the people who believe the 'official story' are close-minded and those who question the official story are open-minded.

The Official Story:
Global Warming Is Real

And those who question this are open minded?

They believe that the deforestation around the globe has no effect.

Quote
RawPracticalist
> the people who believe the 'official story' are close-minded and those who question the official story are open-minded.

The Official Story:
Global Warming Is Real

And those who question this are open minded?

They believe that the deforestation around the globe has no effect.

No. The Official Story is -

"Man-Made" Global Warming is real

We "Deniers" say - we may be in a global warming period, but it's not 'man-made'; and if we are in a warming trend, it's a natural warming cycle.

Yes, those who question that 'man' is causing global warming are healthily skeptical and open-minded.

Brazil - Amazon




Extreme drought in amazon rain forest



Believing that extreme deforestation has no effect is being close minded.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2018 10:13AM by RawPracticalist.

I love your pictures, Raw Practicalist. They are worth a thousand words.

The Earth went through extreme cycles for eons before man had any influence on it. Nature isn't exactly kind and benevolent, it's actually a cruel bitch most of the time...

Nature has a long term objective when it triggers extreme cycle.

It can be that new continents have to emerge from the sea.

It can be that dinosaur era has to end for human life form to emerge.

It may seem to us to be random but it is not.

But for us humans to reason that because nature causes extreme periodic cycles, we too can destroy the forest and we will be OK is totally nonsense.

Nature extreme cycles are followed by drastic changes.

So too extreme deforestation will trigger drought and famine.

The law of cause and effect.

Raw Practicalist wrote:
But for us humans to reason that because nature causes extreme periodic cycles, we too can destroy the forest and we will be OK is totally nonsense.

Tai:
Exactly. Easter Island is a painful lesson:
[www.easterisland.travel]
Easter Island deforestation: Are we causing our own doom?
June 7, 2015 Marcus Edensky 1 Comment
By Marcus Edensky

Palm tree jungle
Easter Island jungles before deforestation were similar to those of Hawai’i when first settled a thousand years ago.
The most remote location in the world is a tiny island called Rapa Nui, known to many as Easter Island. Due to its small size, Rapa Nui has a particularly fragile eco system. Centuries ago, huge statues in the hundreds were carved and raised by stone age tribes. The obsession of building and transporting statues caused total deforestation. What can we learn from this?

When I was guiding a couple of learned tourists the other day, I talked about how the ancient Easter Island people cut down all of their own trees. The man said: “That’s so stupid. How could they not understand that their forests were disappearing?”. It’s a good and valid question.

Easter Island covered in palm tree forest jungle
Easter Island was covered in millions of palm trees a thousand years ago. Drawing: Andreas Mieth.
Man hugging last Easter Island palm tree in movie Rapa Nui
There might have been a great fight when the last palm tree was cut down, completing deforestation, as depicted in the 1994 movie Rapa Nui.
Easter Island was settled some thousand years ago. It was then a virgin land with a jungle of millions and millions of palm trees. A unique culture and society was developed. The island was split up to approximately ten tribes, each ruled by their own chieftain. The chieftains had mana – supernatural power, used to forge luck and fortune for their tribe. When a chieftain died, the tribe let carve a tomb stone statue, representing their deceased leader. The spirit and mana of the chieftain was contained within the statue, allowing him to forever be watching over his descendents. They called the statue moai – “so that he may exist”.

Moai statues of Ahu Tongariki.
Mighty statues were raised on tombs of chieftains to preserve their spirit.
As tribes were convinced that building moai statues was the key to success in all aspects of life, this became increasingly important. All spare resources were spent on producing statues. As the moais increased in size and number, with weights up to 80 tons and more. The island’s tree population took a big toll, as wood was used to transport the moai statues. This eventually lead to total deforestation of Easter Island, putting an end to a tradition of statue building that had lasted for centuries.

Moai infographic drawing statues size compared to man
The moai statues increased dramatically in size over the centuries.
Palm planting pit Easter Island
Palm planting pit recently discovered by german archaeologists Burkhard Vogt and Anette Kühlem. © Burkhard Vogt
So, did no one see this end coming? In fact, there was a small group of people that did plant trees. I’m sure they said to others: “Do you not understand that we are about to run out of trees? Once we do, there is no going back!”. But powerful men wanted statues, so deforestation went on. Globally in the world today, the tree population is decreasing. There are those who try to warn us about these things, but many don’t take them seriously, and don’t listen to them. Meanwhile, as the world demands products made from trees, forests are cut down. Money is a powerful force. Who doesn’t want paper to write on? In the end, it seems we are making exactly the same mistakes as the ancient Easter Island people did. This was my answer to the wondering tourist.

If global deforestation continues, the world will look very differently in a hundred years.
If global deforestation continues, the world will look very differently in a hundred years. Projection by WWF.
It is said that we can foresee the future by looking at the past. Are we able to learn from history’s lessons though? Or are we doomed to repeat other people’s mistakes over and over again? As it seems, it’s part of our imperfect nature to not see further than our own noses, and to blindly strive forwards without thinking of future consequences. Knowing and understanding are a whole world apart. Every day we take choices, and every single one of these decide what our future will look like. In the end, our destiny is in our own hands, and our future depends on no one else but us.

10 Credible Conspiracy Theories?

[www.thedailybell.com]

Since Obama's election, the constituent theories within the overarching narrative of the New World Order have increasingly made inroads into the mainstream national discourse. … Joseph Farah's WorldNetDaily.com, for example, has grown its influence by peddling paranoia about the president's birth certificate and AmeriCorps' "domestic armies." Earlier this year, the John Birch Society, a group with a long history of hatching and promoting wild conspiracy theories (including the idea that President Eisenhower was a communist agent), co-sponsored the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual powwow of leading conservatives and Republican Party figures. Speakers at this year's conference included such mainstream names as Washington Post columnist George Will, former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner. Here is a compilation of 10 of the most popular conspiracy theories currently circulating on the radical right and, increasingly, on points of the political spectrum much too close to the center for comfort." – AlterNet

Dominant Social Theme: The lunatics need to be reined in.

Free-Market Analysis: While popular, left-wing website AlterNet cannot be considered mainstream media per se, this article partakes of the modern Western (mostly US) tradition of debunking suspicions that people may have about their government. It is especially a US dominant social theme – that the "paranoid style" of US politics generates fantastical suspicions about the US fedgov's intentions. Various "right wing" nutcases are flagellated for not taking the US-based corporatocracy and military industrial complex at its word.

Never mind that the US government is a US$3 trillion-plus entity with world-spanning power and that entities so powerful and complex have their own logic and their own over-riding agenda. Never mind that the US has been almost constantly at war (somewhere in some fashion) for the past 100 years or longer. (Never mind, in fact, that the US now employs so many domestic and foreign intel operatives that it cannot keep track of them anymore.) In fact, when one looks into AlterNet at Wikipedia it becomes fairly clear that the money behind the group comes from the predictable power-elite pocketbook, including the Ford Foundation which never saw a socialist cause it couldn't endorse and fund. (Henry Ford has been rolling like a top for decades.) Perhaps AlterNet is a promotion, too?

Anyway, such an article is of obvious interest to the Daily Bell because it counteracts (with the calm voice of reason) suspicions that the powers-that-be are in any sense aimed at US citizens themselves. These sorts of articles are actually quite numerous on the 'Net, but this is a very good example of one. Here are the top ten list of conspiracy theories from AlterNet and our comments beneath.

(More at the link)

(The 911 'conspiracy theory' is very credible)

I think Global warming is just a bunch on hot air also!

We are not fouling our own nest, The earth did it! And Obama was no help.


Denial of global warming is solid proof we are in deep collective @#$%&, and proof common sense exstinct.

Its absurd to think 26 billion pounds of oil extracted from the Earth Every 24hr, then 90% turned to vapor in our out of site out of mind Atmosphere Could effect! just Duh!

If we are wrong well, No hard feelings, But theres money to be made

And our citys, that stink, everyone, they say its fosil fuel, but don't be fueld folks , it,s LIB Gas.

BURN BABY BURN! NOT I SAID THE FOSIL FOOL!

Oil (fossil fuel)
Oil and Gas Industry
How much oil is consumed daily in the world?





Allen E Hall,
Dec 22, 2016



25,739,700,000 lbs or 11,699,863,636 kg is the weight of the oil extracted from the ground each day!! 26 billion pounds! Equal to 145 million megawatts of power or 224,960,073 man years of labor.
That works out to 9,401,425,425,000 lbs or 4,273,375,193,182 kg annually. That is almost 9.5 Trillion pounds a year! The equivalent of 82,166,666,667 man years of labor. 82 billion man years of labor every years!
The amount of energy in the oil we extract from the earth in total annually is 7 times the energy of all nuclear weapons combined or over 44,000 megatons of energy.
The Earth receives 1,388,888,888,888,880 MWh of solar energy from the sun each year of which 833,333,333,333 MWh is converted into chemical energy by plants. Some of this becomes coal and oil eventually. We consume a full years worth of chemical sunlight, 833,333,333,333 MWh , in oil every 16 years.
If you replaced the water running over niagra falls at full volume with crude oil, it would take 26 days for 1 year of oil to travel over the falls.
Over 500 trillion pounds in the last century or almost 1 Trillion man years of labor equivalent energy
Oil Equivalents

Conspiracies happen. Many are real. It seems to me that's pretty much indisputable.

What troubles me is when people absolutely and passionately believe a conspiracy "theory", without adequate supporting evidence, and then pass it off as fact to others, regardless of any potential harm or hurt.

Those believers now become a part of their own elite group with special knowledge that others cannot grasp. But what's the price for that kind of self-deception? To themselves? To others? To all of us and our understanding about the value of actually seeking the truth?

I know people who I really really like, who are good people, who help others in need, but who also believe wholeheartedly in any conspiracy theory that comes along. That's Ok, when they don't lord it over everyone else. as if they're some superior human being and everyone who doesn't think like them is just one of themasses. And as long as they don't spread rhetoric that is unproven and hateful.

A conspiracy theory can become a weapon when those so very knowledgeable elite choose to use it that way.

Truth is not just whatever lie happens to project to the top in a given moment. It has it's own very special legitimacy that exists forever and can never be erased. And all of truth, good or bad, happy or sad, always exists for one purpose, and that's for the advancement of love on the planet, in the universe. Not hate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2018 08:56AM by suncloud.

Simply because the truth is too real
And we do not like to face the truth.
And
The lies and conspiracies are fantasies
And we like to dream and escape reality.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2018 01:18PM by RawPracticalist.