Disinformation Agents Need Not Apply, We Have Believers

One of my frustrations is when I am skeptical I get tarred with the anti-UFO brush. This is so far from the truth as to be laughable. I have over 250 UFO books in my personal collection, dating back into the fifties with some of the wonderful classics such as Adamski and Bethurum. I was a member of Mufon when Andrus was still Director. I remember talking to him about the need to get a web site and listening to him tell me was too busy for such nonsense. I have been on scene (as in: In my rocking chair reading) as many of the classic UFO flaps happened. I have studied intensely a few of them: Ed Walters, Billy Meier, Steven Greer. I've written articles in the field. I was at the UFO Museum in Roswell a few days ago. I've been reading this stuff since I was a kid (in the fifties!)

So when someone shows up and enthusiastically waxes eloquent on how cool Billy Meier is I know they just are ignorant, but I find myself saying, Oh, God, not THIS again! It has been beat to death years ago. So I will point out a few threads this new person might want to avail himself of, and THEN he turns all, "You are a skeptic and a disinformation agent!" on me.

Well, no. It's just that I know a whole lot more about this stuff than he does and he doesn't know what you are talking about. That's all. I do admit that having been in this field for so long as turned me more skeptical than I was. I thought Billy Meier was promising. I have the coffee table books. I thought Ed Walters was promising. I thought Steven Greer was promising. But when you look into what they have done, you find fraud. They've been caught. And it's not just little stuff subject to misinterpretation. You can find the parts for the Billy Meier ray gun on eBay, for God's sake. They are made of plastic. Are you seriously suggesting this is disinformation?

But when people are confronted with these facts, some of them dug up by people right here on ATS, and they STILL "believe," what you are dealing with is not objective observers seeking the truth. You're dealing with believers, people who want so much to believe that they will at any cost. It's a religion, a classic Cargo Cult, where the Space Brothers will come from the sky bringing peace through technology and we'll all live happily ever-after.

So where a truly objective viewer would look at that piece of plastic on eBay that was "Made in China," compare it to the Billy Meier Ray Gun and say, "Yup, it's looking pretty bad for Billy." the believer will say, "That's disinformation planted there by the CIA!" Is there any proof of that? Of course not. It's made up. The "disinformation" is the believer himself claiming the plastic Ray Gun is a CIA plant.

And that means, pretty much, that those who claim others are "disinformation agents, including right here in this thread!" have no credibility at all.

Does that mean there's no such thing as UFOs? Of course not. Nobody ever said that. Don't be stupid.

I've noticed this across all conspiracy forums, not just ATS. Hear me out for a moment, I may be crazy, or I might be on to something.


Since 2012, I've seen a huge uptick in people who require little to no evidence to form beliefs. These people are the same people who utilize ad hominem and other fallacies to retort arguments. None of their arguments or beliefs stand up to scrutiny and they will attack you should you point that out.

I believe these are the new "disinfo agents."

The skeptics who scrutinize everything are no longer the priority target. They're targeting the new members who are here and have no experience in being able to discern if something is real or fake. I mean, heck, I see dozens of people posting The Onion articles all around the web, thinking that they are real!

This has made verifying true information nearly impossible, as the internet is loaded with known hoax articles claiming to be real, from (sometimes) even "true" news stations.

Just my 2 cents.

Peace.

a reply to: schuyler

I couldn't have said it better. It's a cult at times. Proof almost always comes second.

.... I just want to know what the overlapping "warbling" frequencies were, and what they were for. Oh, and what the area specific vibrations are/were? Everything else I have a good idea about. Just passin' through. Just searchin'.

a reply to: Jenisiz

I believe we could make things better by simply understanding the proof shouldn't be up for interpretation.

So the proof should be self evident, it is so clear and simple in its message that people easily understand it. It gives them the ah ha moment.

As for interpretation, how we relate different languages, ideas and concepts is as complex as the mind is. There does appear to be something to the morphic field theories as human interest does diversify across topics at a fairly standard rate.

With the powerhouse of US military across the globe it is naive to expect the US has shut down its only space transport system with NASA. There is a large dependency and infrastructure of space technology in the current geopolitical environment. As for how much and how far current capability extends is in the gray zone, maybe there is some over hype to look stronger or maybe some under hype to keep some aces up the sleeve. When it comes to war games, keeping everyone guessing is a common one.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

The philosophy of nearly all die-hard Believers and tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nuts is that "if it is on YouTube, it is TRUE"....lol

So many people come here with "positive proof" and then offer links to YouTube.. It's pretty funny to be a normal person reading all the fantasies that people come up with on ATS.

Not saying some conspiracies are not without merit, but some of the crap is just beyond possibility, yet people will swear that it's all true...heh

You can't reason with them because then you are a "dis-info agent"..

a reply to: schuyler

What makes you such an expert?

Who are these "crazies"?

Where is YOUR proof they are, in fact, "crazy"?

...or is it just...

YOUR OPINION?!

Edit:

Oh, wow...

You have UFO books?

You must truly be an expert on what is and is not.

/sarcasm

a reply to: Ironclad2000

Some of "this crap is beyond possibility"?

How do you know?

Here's a hint...

...you don't.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
One of the most succesful startegies used by the disinfo crowd is to fill forums with stupid nonsense thats easily debunked. Then they sign in with another name and debunk it. Then they start hooting and holering about how foolish everyone is.

Its called Social engineering, and there's a lot of it happening, even in this thread!

Give this man more stars, he's onto the truth!!

They call it the "straw man" argument, where a weak or false argument is set up so that it can easily be knocked down.

originally posted by: Ironclad2000
a reply to: _BoneZ_

The philosophy of nearly all die-hard Believers and tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nuts is that "if it is on YouTube, it is TRUE"....lol

So many people come here with "positive proof" and then offer links to YouTube.. It's pretty funny to be a normal person reading all the fantasies that people come up with on ATS.

Not saying some conspiracies are not without merit, but some of the crap is just beyond possibility, yet people will swear that it's all true...heh

You can't reason with them because then you are a "dis-info agent"..

Most OP's bring forth material from Youtube, so a community of great minds can get together, and pull it apart or at least, examine it for themselves.

Some people on here scream fake just because the video has music in it, kinda pathetic to be honest.

It's not often I see a thread that screams 'loook positive proof", it's usually just some person sharing what they've found to a community...

Most of my threads have been in the UFO forum, doesn't mean I believe most of what I put up, I only try and get answers from better minds than myself. (Which is nearly everyone)

a reply to: schuyler

So where a truly objective viewer would look at that piece of plastic on eBay that was "Made in China," compare it to the Billy Meier Ray Gun and say, "Yup, it's looking pretty bad for Billy." the believer will say, "That's disinformation planted there by the CIA!" Is there any proof of that? Of course not. It's made up. The "disinformation" is the believer himself claiming the plastic Ray Gun is a CIA plant.

And that means, pretty much, that those who claim others are "disinformation agents, including right here in this thread!" have no credibility at all.

There has been plenty of alleged cover-ups regarding this phenomenon, and you would want proof? right? But the proof you'd want could potentially be in a Government agencies vaults, but you want them?

Good luck with that mate

a reply to: skyblueworld

They call it the "straw man" argument, where a weak or false argument is set up so that it can easily be knocked down.

"Straw man" arguments take many forms, that's not one. A similar strategy is to project all these vile derogatory characteristics onto these fictitious, or at least unproven, disinfo debunkers and then label anyone that disagrees with you as one. Then you argue a point that the fictional evil debunker said regardless if it was actually said by anyone ever.

might as well call it the "swamp gas" argument.

originally posted by: Jenisiz

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: VoidHawk
One of the most succesful startegies used by the disinfo crowd is to fill forums with stupid nonsense thats easily debunked. Then they sign in with another name and debunk it. Then they start hooting and holering about how foolish everyone is.

Its called Social engineering, and there's a lot of it happening, even in this thread!

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. "Social engineering" is the process of talking you out of security details to enable someone to break into your computer (or maybe your house) or one you control. It has nothing at all to do with "disinformation," which is the process of spreading false information sprinkled with known facts to make it impossible to discern what the true facts are. They are polls apart. One intends to steal access to property you may control. The other is meant to confuse you. The goals of the two methods are completely different.

Nice try, but epic fail.

Winner winner...

Remember rule one - Best to be thought a fool then to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.

I get what he was saying, but what we just witnessed is exactly what I'm referring to in this forum. I'm being called out for using a tactic the poster doesn't understand. If you're going to calm someone out, at least do so intelligently instead of making nonsensical accusations you don't understand simply because I'm a skeptic.

I'd just like to make a brief comment. You guys/gals are talking about social engineering in the context of information technology, but there are other realms where social engineering is employed, such as social engineering in the political world. I believe voidhawk is using the term in the broader sense. Social engineering is not specific to information technology, like several members in this thread are attempting to claim.

originally posted by: sixandone

originally posted by: Jenisiz

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: VoidHawk
One of the most succesful startegies used by the disinfo crowd is to fill forums with stupid nonsense thats easily debunked. Then they sign in with another name and debunk it. Then they start hooting and holering about how foolish everyone is.

Its called Social engineering, and there's a lot of it happening, even in this thread!

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. "Social engineering" is the process of talking you out of security details to enable someone to break into your computer (or maybe your house) or one you control. It has nothing at all to do with "disinformation," which is the process of spreading false information sprinkled with known facts to make it impossible to discern what the true facts are. They are polls apart. One intends to steal access to property you may control. The other is meant to confuse you. The goals of the two methods are completely different.

Nice try, but epic fail.

Winner winner...

Remember rule one - Best to be thought a fool then to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.

I get what he was saying, but what we just witnessed is exactly what I'm referring to in this forum. I'm being called out for using a tactic the poster doesn't understand. If you're going to calm someone out, at least do so intelligently instead of making nonsensical accusations you don't understand simply because I'm a skeptic.

I'd just like to make a brief comment. You guys/gals are talking about social engineering in the context of information technology, but there are other realms where social engineering is employed, such as social engineering in the political world. I believe voidhawk is using the term in the broader sense. Social engineering is not specific to information technology, like several members in this thread are attempting to claim.

As an actual shrink I can tell you that is not social engineering. One of the things humans exceed at is grouping. An issue on these boards stems from individuals biting off more they can chew and stretching proof and their knowledge to an extent that is fallible. He is referring to Social Trust Behavior as I've mentioned before. Check it out.

Printer-friendly versionSend by email

Trust and Trust Building

 

By
Roy J. Lewicki
Edward C. Tomlinson 

December 2003
 

Trust- Overview


"Trust is a peculiar resource; it is built rather than depleted by use." --Unknown

The phenomenon of trust has been extensively explored by a variety of disciplines across the social sciences, including economics, social psychology, and political science. The breadth of this literature offers rich insight, and this is noted in the common elements that appear in the definition of trust.

For example, Rousseau and her colleagues offer the following definition: "Trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another."[1] Similarly, Lewicki and his colleagues describe trust as "an individual's belief in, and willingness to act on the basis of, the words, actions, and decisions of another."[2]



Additional insights into trust building are offered by Beyond Intractability project participants.

The need for trust arises from our interdependencewith others. We often depend on other people to help us obtain, or at least not to frustrate, the outcomes we value (and they on us). As our interests with others are intertwined, we also must recognize that there is an element of risk involved insofar as we often encounter situations in which we cannot compel the cooperation we seek. Therefore, trust can be very valuable in social interactions.

Trust has been identified as a key element of successful conflict resolution (including negotiation and mediation). This is not surprising insofar as trust is associated with enhanced cooperation, information sharing, and problem solving.

Origins and Development of Trust


Armed with a definition of trust and a description of the benefits it brings, we now turn to examine its origins and development. Theory on the origins of interpersonal trust has proceeded broadly along three fronts: (1) explaining differences in the individual propensity to trust, (2) understanding dimensions of trustworthy behavior, and (3) suggesting levels of trust development.

Individual propensity to trust

Personality theorists have developed one of the oldest theoretical perspectives on trust, and argued that some people are more likely to trust than others. Viewed as a fairly stable trait over time, trust is regarded as a generalized expectancy that other people can be relied on. This expectancy is a function of the degree to which trust has been honored in that individual's history of prior social interactions, and may have its most pronounced effect in novel or ambiguous situations. While this expectancy shapes perceptions of the character of people in general, more recent work has identified the characteristics of trustees that allow for the formation of trust and its growth to higher levels.

Dimensions of trustworthy behavior

Our trust in another individual can be grounded in our evaluation of his/her ability, integrity, and benevolence. That is, the more we observe these characteristics in another person, our level of trust in that person is likely to grow.

Ability refers to an assessment of the other's knowledge, skill, or competency. This dimension recognizes that trust requires some sense that the other is able to perform in a manner that meets our expectations.

Integrity is the degree to which the trustee adheres to principles that are acceptable to the trustor. This dimension leads to trust based on consistency of past actions, credibility of communication, commitment to standards of fairness, and the congruence of the other's word and deed.

Benevolence is our assessment that the trusted individual is concerned enough about our welfare to either advance our interests, or at least not impede them. The other's perceived intentions or motives of the trustee are most central. Honest and open communication, delegating decisions, and sharing control indicate evidence of one's benevolence.

Although these three dimensions are likely to be linked to each other, they each contribute separately to influence the level of trust in another within a relationship. However, ability and integrity are likely to be most influential early in a relationship, as information on one's benevolence needs more time to emerge. The effect of benevolence will increase as the relationship between the parties grows closer. The next section describes trust development in relationships in more detail.

Levels of trust development

Early theories of trust described it as a unidimensional phenomenon that simply increased or decreased in magnitude and strength within a relationship. However, more recent approaches to trust suggests that trust builds along a continuum of hierarchical and sequential stages, such that as trust grows to 'higher' levels, it becomes stronger and more resilient and changes in character. This is the primary perspective we adopt in the remainder of these essays.

At early stages of a relationship, trust is at a calculus-based level. In other words, an individual will carefully calculate how the other party is likely to behave in a given situation depending on the rewards for being trustworthy and the deterrents against untrustworthy behavior. In this manner, rewards and punishments form the basis of control that a trustor has in ensuring the trustee's behavioral consistency. Individuals deciding to trust the other mentally contemplate the benefits of staying in the relationship with the trustee versus the benefits of 'cheating' on the relationship, and the costs of staying in the relationship versus the costs of breaking the relationship. Trust will only be extended to the other to the extent that this cost-benefit calculation indicates that the continued trust will yield a net positive benefit. Over time, calculus-based trust (CBT) can be built as individuals manage their reputation and assure the stability of their behavior by behaving consistently, meeting agreed-to deadlines, and fulfilling promises. CBT is a largely cognitively-driven trust phenomenon, grounded in judgments of the trustees predictability and reliability.

However, as the parties come to a deeper understanding of each other through repeated interactions, they may become aware of shared values and goals. This allows trust to grow to a higher and qualitatively different level. When trust evolves to the highest level, it is said to function as identification-based trust (IBT). At this stage trust has been built to the point that the parties have internalized each other's desires and intentions. They understand what the other party really cares about so completely that each party is able to act as an agent for the other. Trust at this advanced stage is also enhanced by a strong emotional bond between the parties, based on a sense of shared goals and values. So, in contrast to CBT, IBT is a more emotionally-driven phenomenon, grounded in perceptions of interpersonal care and concern, and mutual need satisfaction

a reply to: Jenisiz

I very much agree with your OP, but have feelings of doubt when dealing with my own confirmation bias. I feel like I know some things for sure. And I debunk those things to attempt to keep folks from jumping off the deep end with them. But when looking at say, UFO's I find myself a little irritated when someone smashes a theory. Even if they were totally in the right.

Best example, the Black Knight satellite. I was perfectly happy thinking it "could" be a bit of technology from a long lost civilization from earth, thus proving "something", but simply making for fun conversation about what if's. But a resident debunker brought the facts to the point that it's no longer believable for me as anything other than more space junk. I would have been happier just thinking incorrectly that it was something it was not. Of course the logical part of my brain thinks otherwise and is thankful for the knowledge.

Having minimal training in psychology, I have no answers as to why I feel that way, perhaps you do.

Oh, and I never worry about smashing others dreams as I feel I am justified since it's the truth.

I feel like I need to be lying on a couch while telling you this.

a reply to: network dude

The fact you realize you have confirmation bias (as we all do) puts you ten steps ahead of most!

Disinfo can take many forms, as it refers to a goal rather than the means to that goal. I don't see a wide need for actual trained employees though, people do most of it themselves. Though, given some posts made by admin, it seems some are certainly out there.

On another note, social engineering isn't specific to 'hacking.'

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Jenisiz

I very much agree with your OP, but have feelings of doubt when dealing with my own confirmation bias. I feel like I know some things for sure. And I debunk those things to attempt to keep folks from jumping off the deep end with them. But when looking at say, UFO's I find myself a little irritated when someone smashes a theory. Even if they were totally in the right.

Best example, the Black Knight satellite. I was perfectly happy thinking it "could" be a bit of technology from a long lost civilization from earth, thus proving "something", but simply making for fun conversation about what if's. But a resident debunker brought the facts to the point that it's no longer believable for me as anything other than more space junk. I would have been happier just thinking incorrectly that it was something it was not. Of course the logical part of my brain thinks otherwise and is thankful for the knowledge.

Having minimal training in psychology, I have no answers as to why I feel that way, perhaps you do.

Oh, and I never worry about smashing others dreams as I feel I am justified since it's the truth.

I feel like I need to be lying on a couch while telling you this.

What you're referring to is a series of cognitive biases, confirmation bias... something we all suffer from. The best way to overcome it is by attempting to see situations and proof from a third person's perspective. We all have preexisting opinions on all matters that are formed from social and genetic ques. As I mentioned earlier, viewing from a third person perspective helps in addition to focusing on proof that can be successfully reproduced.

From what I can gather you seem to be a skeptical believer. You want to find proof of your theories and even when it's found to be a hoax, a sliver of hope remains. It signifies someone who has an analytical way of viewing life, has more than likely had an unexplained experience and is trying to find justification for it.

The key word in UFO is Unidentified. Anything beyond that is speculation.

However not every speculator is a liar or an opportunist-But some are. Many people have cashed in on their X files fan fiction and yet people still pay good money to see them on stage.

These people muddy the waters and whenever that happens credible anecdotal evidence gets swept under the rug.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
The key word in UFO is Unidentified. Anything beyond that is speculation.

Exactly! UFO's definitely exist. Back in the day, many of them were stealth bombers that the American government was testing. Also, many of the UFO claims that came out of Russia during the cold war were also stealth aircraft that the US government was flying over the country.

Though that isn't to say that UFO's that didn't originate from the US government (or any human government for that matter) don't exist, but until it can be shown that an unidentified craft is extraterrestrial in nature, it remains classified as "unidentified". Too many UFO enthusiasts forget about the unidentified part and just make the assumption that they are alien in nature.

However not every speculator is a liar or an opportunist-But some are. Many people have cashed in on their X files fan fiction and yet people still pay good money to see them on stage.

These people muddy the waters and whenever that happens credible anecdotal evidence gets swept under the rug.

The problem with anecdotal evidence, even from a credible source, is that it is ALWAYS unreliable. People's brains play tricks on them and those tricks get worse when they are trying to remember events (ex: a fisherman catches a 1 foot long fish that quickly escalates to 2, 3, 4, or higher feet long with each retelling).

Confirmation biases also skew anecdotal evidence. If someone is predisposed to believe a certain way, if they see something they can't explain; they will be more liable to say that it is something they already believe. This is how many encounters that people term "religious" happen.

Anecdotal evidence is really only good for supplementing empirical evidence. If all you have is anecdotal evidence, then you really don't have proof of anything.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
The key word in UFO is Unidentified. Anything beyond that is speculation.

However not every speculator is a liar or an opportunist-But some are. Many people have cashed in on their X files fan fiction and yet people still pay good money to see them on stage.

These people muddy the waters and whenever that happens credible anecdotal evidence gets swept under the rug.

The number one thing I see here is people willing to accept any proof because they themselves have had some type of experience and are striving to not be viewed as outcasts even though several want to be socially accepted more than most. They adopt the rationale that if group A has had an experience then it can be used to justify their own. Often individuals like this have had issues in the past being accepted socially or believed in the area at hand.