I was always wondering about this, the term "conspiracy theory" seems to have taken a definition that is not just the literal meaning of the word, but rather one based around a certain community around it. And that's how I interpret the forum as well, since there are obviously actual conspiracies in the world, but it doesn't seem like we would discuss those in the conspiracy forum. What is the mods stance on that?
I'm not a psychologist, but it seems to me that most conspiracy theorists are people desperate to see some kind of hidden design, even if it's a sinister one. It's the same kind of yearning for an intelligent framework that has kept religions going.
There's something very silly about conspiracy theorists on the internet though. If they think that the government (The World Government) is an evil monster machine bent on mind control and world domination, aren't they worried that by "revealing" its machinations on the internet they'll be targeted and disappeared?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not a psychologist, but it seems to me that most conspiracy theorists are people desperate to see some kind of hidden design, even if it's a sinister one. It's the same kind of yearning for an intelligent framework that has kept religions going.
In part, at least. The term is apophenia, the ability to find patterns in randomness, if you want to look it up. There was at least one controlled test that found believers in the paranormal are quicker to find patterns where none existed. I feel like a lot of conspiracy people have different priorities social backgrounds, though.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In part, at least. The term is apophenia, the ability to find patterns in randomness, if you want to look it up. There was at least one controlled test that found believers in the paranormal are quicker to find patterns where none existed. I feel like a lot of conspiracy people have different priorities social backgrounds, though.
*Learned the word from the Question on JLU 😛
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not a psychologist, but it seems to me that most conspiracy theorists are people desperate to see some kind of hidden design, even if it's a sinister one.
I would change "even" to "especially".
Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's the same kind of yearning for an intelligent framework that has kept religions going.
I see the same in any belief system including atheism. It is called "confirmation bias".
Originally posted by Omega Vision
There's something very silly about conspiracy theorists on the internet though. If they think that the government (The World Government) is an evil monster machine bent on mind control and world domination, aren't they worried that by "revealing" its machinations on the internet they'll be targeted and disappeared?
"I'm behind 7 proxies and my traffic is encrypted starting at the first node. Good luck."
The real conspiracy theories are not so much theories as they are just plain exposure. You will run across that shit on the deep web. Guess what? They are behind 7 or so proxies and their traffic is encrypted. The real "shit" people expose cannot be readily accessed. They are technically conspirators, themselves.
You won't find my "real shit" on the plain web.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The Question was actually the basis for Rorschach in Watchmen
To a point; however, Alan Moore has related a story about an acquaintance (not specified who) who said he asked Ditko about whether he was familiar with Rorschach. Reportedly, Ditko acknowledged, describing Rorschach as being "like Mr. A except insane". Now Ditko created both as I am sure you are well aware and the Charlton characters certainly lent themselves to the other Watchmen. I do see Rorschach as more Mr. A. than The Question though.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I see the same in any belief system including atheism. It is called "confirmation bias".
Confirmation bias isn't an impetus for beliefs, which is clearly what he's talking about. It would be hard to argue that atheism is motivated by a desire for an intelligent framework since there is nothing in it to provide such intelligence. Looking for a universal framework in general, however, is pretty motive for philosophy.
Originally posted by dadudemonI see the same in any belief system including atheism. It is called "confirmation bias".
And just because I'm not a psychologist doesn't mean I've never heard of confirmation bias. I've taken Intro to Psychology uhuh
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Confirmation bias isn't an impetus for beliefs, which is clearly what he's talking about.
I thought he was talking about people who prefer information that confirms their beliefs or ideas?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It would be hard to argue that atheism is motivated by a desire for an intelligent framework since there is nothing in it to provide such intelligence. Looking for a universal framework in general, however, is pretty motive for philosophy.
Clearly, someone who has an atheistic confirmation bias would be looking for information that favors the beliefs or ideas that operates from an atheistic perspective. How you interpret that to be "atheism is motivated by a desire for an intelligent framework", I have no idea.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Not really. Atheists aren't seeking out intelligent frameworks qua atheists. They might be doing it anyway because it's a powerful human impulse, but they aren't atheist because they're doing it, but doing it in spite of being atheist.
I don't see how that contradicts what I stated. Also, it is impossible to logically derive from my statement that people are atheists because of the exercise of confirmation bias.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
And just because I'm not a psychologist doesn't mean I've never heard of confirmation bias. I've taken Intro to Psychology uhuh
Yeah, I was pretty much joking about that. That's why I put it in quotes. 😄
Originally posted by focus4chumps
this would make an interesting thread. however none of this has anything to do with christopher dorner and/or the lapd.
True, Ushgarak will probably lay down the hammer in a bit so Imma shutup about the off-topic subject. PM me if you wish to continue this conversation, fellas. 😄
Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought he was talking about people who prefer information that confirms their beliefs or ideas?
Confirmation bias is a mechanism for making mistakes not what causes a "desperate to see some kind of hidden design," which it seems pretty clear is what he was talking about.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Confirmation bias is a mechanism for making mistakes not what causes a "desperate to see some kind of hidden design," which it seems pretty clear is what he was talking about.
I prefer the more correct definition:
"Confirmation bias, as the term is typically used in the psychological literature, connotes the seeking or interpreting of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or a hypothesis in hand."
http://psy2.ucsd.edu/~mckenzie/nickersonConfirmationBias.pdf
So, no, it does not only apply to researchers (or something similar) making statistical errors due to a bias. That would actually be the less common use and interpretation.
All response I make will be done via PM. If you wish to discuss this further, feel free to PM me.