Why no one can learn us conspiracy tards

I found this rather interesting reading, hope someone else does too.

(and YES, I am a tard too)


When in doubt, shout – why shaking someone’s beliefs turns them into stronger advocates


You don’t have to look very far for examples of people holding on to their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Thousands still hold to the idea that vaccines cause autism, that all life was created a few thousand years ago, and even that drinking industrial bleach is a good idea. Look at comment threads across the internet and you’ll inevitably find legions of people who boldly support for these ideas in the face of any rational argument.

That might be depressing, but it’s not unexpected. In a new study, David Gal and Derek Rucker from Northwestern University have found that when people’s confidence in their beliefs is shaken, they become stronger advocates for those beliefs. The duo carried out three experiments involving issues such as animal testing, dietary preferences, and loyalty towards Macs over PCs. In each one, they subtly manipulated their subjects’ confidence and found the same thing: when faced with doubt, people shout even louder.

continued...

blogs.discovermagazine.com...

Isn't that the truth or at least part of it... As an interesting study, can't say I fully trust the sources intent to study this. It does seem to show as to why threads with opposing commentary(minus the trolls), that sharing evidence of your concern rarely pays off.

reply to post by CircleOfDust

Is an interesting study. According to it, a person who has great confidence in their opinions will advocate them less strongly than someone who has less confidence. A person will advocate more strongly if their identity is threatened or their belief is important and/or they feel they'll be listened to.

Not sure what it all means. I know I've experienced it when I have doubts.

Thanks for sharing. I recall reading different articles similar to this one. There are two articles I'll link in a minute that discuss the psychological views of conspiracy theorist and why they believe in them. I found it interesting.

reply to post by Phoenix267


Alright! Here are a good few I can dig up to share. I would like to see some reviews of these links in this thread later.

Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Why Sandy Hook Massacre Spawned Conspiracy Theories

Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories

Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories

Newtown truthers: Where conspiracy theories come from

It would seem this would apply to religious or political debates too, since those are so opinion-oriented. This would explain why there's so much conflict and (false) debate in those circles.

I made this (in the hopes) to better understand the linked study(s):
(Random Advocacy) -> Good Hand -> No effect
(Random Advocacy) -> Bad Hand -> Stronger Advocacy
Identity is Reaffirmed -> (Random Advocacy) -> Good/Bad Hand -> No Effect

Reminded of Past Uncertainty -> (Intimate Advocacy) -> Stronger Advocacy
Reminded of Past Certainty -> (Intimate Advocacy) -> No effect
Reminded of Past Uncertainty/Certainty -> (Non-intimate Advocacy) -> No Effect

Intimate advocacy is something closely tied to your sense of importance or identity.

Note that the effect showed in the studies does not reflect on whether somebody is right or wrong about their opinion. It instead reflects on their (recent past) sense of certainty or identity and how closely their advocacy is tied to their sense of importance or identity and whether they feel hamstrung (like if they're using their non-dominant hand to orchestrate their advocacy). To me, this seems very confusing. Kind of like trying to understand chemistry or physics.

Last night when I went to bed I thought a little about all this. I remember telling myself that I doubt science. How can I not? I cannot scour the entire knowledge of humankind. I just do not have the mental faculty to understand everything. This means there's always an element of doubt. It also means any confidence I have in science is an opinion. In order for it not to be an opinion I'd have to understand all the science before committing to it. But having doubt about an opinion does not reflect on whether it's right or wrong. I can doubt modern science but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Similarly, I can have extreme faith/certainty in specific things and still be wrong.

Bottom line, we have to trust consensus, but trust itself is an opinion. The opinion is that the consensus is right. Since the individual does not KNOW, it can only ever be an opinion. It's just an opinion that most people have and is a tremendously reliable one. It just can't be absent of doubt. The absence of doubt, to me, is more dangerous than anything else I can imagine. It precedes perfection. I do not understand anybody that can not have any doubt. Are they God?

How do you feel about these newspaper articles? I see so many people 'debunking' this subject (in which I tried to post multiple times on this site, its a losing battle lol). It took me a while so read them!! Im new by the way hello all.

www.flickr.com...

reply to post by Phoenix267


Do you think that dis-trust of TPTB and all of our suspicions might have anything to do with the mounting evidence that we are indeed controlled by psycopaths?

I think that common sense has more to do with the unshakeable beliefs of most folks. I always question the motives of anyone that finds the need to shake another persons beliefs.

reply to post by itsallgonenow


Hi there, I'm pretty new here to ATS too.

There's no doubt in my mind that we enjoyed living in a golden age on Earth once and the gravity wasn't as intense, so that not only dinosaurs grew so big but so did we, almost Avatar size/like. But maybe minus the blue.

reply to post by Phoenix267


Well sometimes, just sometimes...the theories are true