Self Deception and Other Pitfalls for the Seeker

[Jeffrey]

Exerpt from Why People Believe in Conspiracies

A skeptic's take on the public's fascination with disinformation

By Michael Shermer

Why do people believe in highly improbable conspiracies? In previous columns I have provided partial answers, citing patternicity (the tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise) and agenticity (the bent to believe the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents). Conspiracy theories connect the dots of random events into meaningful patterns and then infuse those patterns with intentional agency. Add to those propensities the confirmation bias (which seeks and finds confirmatory evidence for what we already believe) and the hindsight bias (which tailors after-the-fact explanations to what we already know happened), and we have the foundation for conspiratorial cognition.


Article Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-people-believe-in-conspiracies

[nearing]

Doesn't the original question depend on the particular conspiracy? To generalize across all conspiracies is sophomoric imo.

_________________
Now that the title of this thread has been changed, it makes my post here unintelligible. So, to clarify, the title used to be:

Why Do Believe in Conspiracy Theories?

[Jeffrey]

He's zoning in on highly improbable conspiracy theories. Gosh.

[nearing]

He is zoning in on highly improbable conspiracy theories. Gosh.

Highly improbable according to whom and by whose statistics?

Shermer makes his living by poo-pooing what others believe, not sure his idea of improbable counts for much.

Nothing against you, Vivek.

[Jeffrey]

http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/ToolBarTopics/Articles/Featured_Authors/fox,_william_b/Fox_works/Fox_books/Mission_of_Conscience/B-1/Art-1/MC-02/Illuminati_Card_Game_Conspiracy_Theorists.jpg

[Jeffrey]

The bolded portion is what I wanted to check.

[Jeffrey]

Excerpts from Apophenia: Definition and Analysis by Sandra Hubscher

Introduction to Apophenia

August Strindberg, the early 20th century Swedish playwright, chronicles in Inferno/From an Occult Diary his descent into what would likely be diagnosed as schizophrenia in modern times:

“There on the ground I found two dry twigs, broken off by the wind. They were shaped like the Greek letter for “P” and “y”… [I]t struck me that [they] must be an abbreviation of the name Popoffsky. Now I was sure it was he who was persecuting me, and that the Powers wanted to open my eyes to my danger.”

This is an eerie and extreme glimpse at the propensity of the human mind to commit what the statisticians Neyman and Pearson (1933) termed Type I error. As a statistical error, it is the acceptance of a false positive, that is, believing to see a difference or meaning when the given result is attributable to chance. Strindberg, in this example, was driven to interpret the random arrangement of sticks as non-random written letters. Although he was laboring under mental illness, the tricks of his mind were not hallucinations, but over-interpretations of his actual sensory perceptions as being more meaningful than reality warranted.

Brugger (2001) puts this weakness of human cognition as a “pervasive tendency of human beings to see order in random configurations,” which Klaus Conrad in 1958 had refined and termed as apophenia, or the “unmotivated seeing of connections [accompanied by] a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness.” Modern examples of apophenia (and its subset corollary pareidolia1) are so numerous and sufficiently well-known to hardly need enumerating, but are amusing enough to merit repeating: Drosnin’s The Bible Code, in which arrangements of letters pulled from scripture predicted events such as 9/11 (and, heads-up, an earthquake – “the big one” – will hit in 2010), the infamous grilled cheese sandwich virgin Mary, Led Zeppelin’s Stairway to Heaven crooning “My sweet Satan,” when played backward, the face on Mars, and, apparently, psychoanalysis...

Apophenia’s Evolutionary Origins

Philosopher Daniel Dennett says in his 2006 book, Breaking the Spell, “Humans are creatures that crave to find order and meaning in their environment. Not only do we want to find meaning in our surroundings, but we needto do this.” A common illustrative example is this scenario: imagine you are warily traveling through a wooded area, aware that there have recently been incidents of other travelers being robbed in the vicinity. You see a dark outline behind some bushes. What should you do? If you believe the outline to be a robber and it turns out to be a shadow, well, rather safe than sorry. But if you assume the outline to be only a shadow and it turns out to be a robber, well, you lose. In an evolutionary sense, then, there is great advantage to assuming to see forms in randomness, robbers in shadows. Dennett puts this category of thinking as a “Good Trick… that is so useful to so many different ways of life that it evolves over and over again in many different species.”

Traveling through life without seeing or making assumptions about patterns would be not only dangerous, but nearly impossible. Tomatoes, introduced to Europe in the 16thcentury, were almost universally considered poisonous throughout the continent and Britain – and rightly so. They are a member of the nightshade family, have a strong resemblance to those fruits and contain glycoalkaloids, a neurotoxin, in their leaves and stems. If you’ve already learned (patterned) that fruits of one plant are poisonous, why would you eat some from a very similar plant? We may know now that, regardless of their association, tomatoes are nutritious and safe to eat, but it would be foolhardy for us to eat anything we find, using the assumption “safe until proven otherwise.”

Pre-historic peoples learned to pattern the changing of the seasons and track game and harvests by it. But this strong inducement has become a cup that overfloweth. Now we hear of baseball players, when having a good season won’t change their socks, or thousands claiming to have “felt something so deep in my heart” because of an “image” of the Virgin Mary formed by road salt on a highway underpass in Chicago (BBC, 2005).

Science and Apophenia

In numerous studies, neurobiologist Brugger has searched for the underlying physiological principles of apophenia and paranormal beliefs. He has found that “people with high levels of dopamine are more likely to find significance in coincidences, and pick out meaning and patterns where there are none,” (Philips, 2002). In one trial in which “skeptics and [paranormal] believers were both given the drug L-dopa, which increases dopamine levels in the brain, the skeptics began to perform much more like the believers.”

Most fascinating of all is the link between creativity and apophenia. Brugger describes a “‘relativity of creativity,’ i.e., [a] continuum from creative detection of real patterns at one end, to the ‘hypercreative’ interpretation of patterns in ‘noise’ [randomness] at the other end.” Brugger further links “the ability to associate, and especially the tendency to prefer ‘remote’ over ‘close’ associations, [to] the heart of creative, paranormal and delusional thinking.” Heilman (2003) similarly describes creative innovation as “the ability to understand and express novel orderly relationships.” Leonardo Da Vinci, utilizing this tendency in order to harness the creativity of his students, advised them to

Look at walls covered with many stains . . . with the idea of imagining some scene, you will see in it a similarity to landscapes adorned with mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, plains, broad valleys, and hills of all kinds… [also] battles and figures with lively gestures and strange faces and costumes and an infinity of things which you can reduce to separate and complex forms.

...

Our ability to discern forms in randomness and patterns in chaos is not necessarily a negative trait. From survival strategies of primitive times to the more enriching and impalpable pursuit of beauty and art, we have derived a tremendous benefit by attaching creativity to free association. The entire enterprise of science, after all, is the organized and rational search for order in the seeming randomness surrounding us. Nobel Prize winner Max Born [wrote] “Science is not formal logic-it needs the free play of the mind in as great a degree as any other creative art.”

Alfred Wegener in 1912, partly on the strength of noticing the puzzle-piece like fit of the continents, proposed the modern theory of continental drift. Lacking a plausible mechanism for the movement, however, his theory languished for about 30 years until further evidence vindicated the “coincidences” he had noted. Although this account could be taken to be representative of the short-sightedness or intractability of established science, this is not so. As in the case of Strindberg or Shiel’s “stick-signs,” merely noting patterns or coincidences in not proof in and of itself but, applied properly, can be the creative leap needed to devise new and testable hypotheses.

As with most human traits, there is a spectrum of appropriateness. Bereft of apophenia, we find ourselves in an unquestioning, patternless existence where everything occurs seemingly without reason. There is no learning from experience: “Once bitten, twice shy,” becomes “Once bitten, never shy,” and the rhythms of the natural world are unappreciated. At the other extreme we find those such as Strindberg, in whose existence objects and events are drowning in meaning and asphyxiated in over-interpretation. Apophenia, in its more benign state provides us a powerful tool to make sense and safety of the world and people around us. In its more extreme forms, however, it is a well-spring of pseudo-science and nonsense, an irrational leap bypassing reason and rationality.

Read Full Article Here: http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/11/04/apophenia-definition-and-analysis/

[Jeffrey]

Well, I was going to post a TED video of Shermer but it just left a bad taste in my mouth. His porage was too cold.

[jackovesk]

Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories..?

Because people Don't believe the BS & Cover-Ups thrown at them by the Govt. & MSM...:yes4:

As Andrew Breitbart said before he was Murdered - "People have lost faith in the MSM & Authorities and they are now becoming their own Journalists and a 'Force' to be reckoned with, within their search for the real 'Truth'..!"

...and that includes ever Single one of us here @ Avalon...:yes4:

[shadowstalker]

Wait isn't Micheal Shermer that skeptic guy that they put on all those kewl theories shows like Ancient Aliens?
If I'm, correct he never believes in anything, did he recently just acquire a PHD?

His new famous line seems to be "Well so what."

[sigma6]

Why do people believe in highly improbable conspiracies? In previous columns I have provided partial answers, citing patternicity (the tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise) and agenticity (the bent to believe the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents). Conspiracy theories connect the dots of random events into meaningful patterns and then infuse those patterns with intentional agency. Add to those propensities the confirmation bias (which seeks and finds confirmatory evidence for what we already believe) and the hindsight bias (which tailors after-the-fact explanations to what we already know happened), and we have the foundation for conspiratorial cognition.
What a load of bunk, what is more naive? We know of mafias, freemasons, Satanic cults, CIA drug planes crashing with 2 tons of cocaine, steel frame buildings that collapse at free fall speed... You'd have to be an idiot to think that there are not greedy, selfish, power hungry, egotistical and morally corrupt people that exist today...

and re: the finding the twigs example, sure but what if I then walked a few more steps and found the same twigs again? and then I looked in the sky and I saw the same outline exactly in the clouds, and then I past by a billboard and saw it again, all in my same walk? Assuming this 'hypothetical' example was 'real' this would be called a statistical anomaly, it is only in movies and truly naive people who would even suggest that is must be a 'projection' or 'coincidence' ... it is sad, sad, sad, that people don't accept the statistical reality of what they are perceiving in front of their own eyes... or that they could even be swayed by such drivel as what this guy is purporting, one does not necessarily have to study statistics to be able to perceive such anomalies...

I can prove that EVERYONE INTUITIVELY understands statistics by using simple examples and Socratic reasoning, the mathematics of statistics is really more just to show that what they are perceiving is in fact mathematically provable, but not necessary otherwise, these things can be easily perceived without the math, and people do all the time without labeling it as such. Yes, some could tighten up their observational abilities, and their logic and reasoning, but again anyone can do that too if they wanted to do. One only has to look for these things and they will be apparent IF they are present... do not let these people mislead you...

if you are going to question yourself be sure to question everything else equally...

[Jeffrey]

Cartesian doubt is a form of methodological skepticism associated with the writings and methodology of René Descartes. Cartesian doubt is also known as Cartesian skepticism, methodic doubt, methodological skepticism, or hyperbolic doubt.

Cartesian doubt is a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of one's beliefs, which has become a characteristic method in philosophy. This method of doubt was largely popularized in Western philosophy by René Descartes (1596-1650), who sought to doubt the truth of all his beliefs in order to determine which beliefs he could be certain were true.

Methodological skepticism is distinguished from philosophical skepticism in that methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims, whereas philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of knowledge.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_doubt#_

[ghostrider]

a little truth mixed in with lies keeps the path cloudy , the seed grows and the truth is right in front of you and for all the beauty ot the flower you can miss what is right there.

[Jeffrey]

The First Meditation, subtitled "What can be called into doubt," opens with the Meditator reflecting on the number of falsehoods he has believed during his life and on the subsequent faultiness of the body of knowledge he has built up from these falsehoods. He has resolved to sweep away all he thinks he knows and to start again from the foundations, building up his knowledge once more on more certain grounds. He has seated himself alone, by the fire, free of all worries so that he can demolish his former opinions with care.

The Meditator reasons that he need only find some reason to doubt his present opinions in order to prompt him to seek sturdier foundations for his knowledge. Rather than doubt every one of his opinions individually, he reasons that he might cast them all into doubt if he can doubt the foundations and basic principles upon which his opinions are founded.

...

On further reflection, the Meditator realizes that even simple things can be doubted. Omnipotent God could make even our conception of mathematics false. One might argue that God is supremely good and would not lead him to believe falsely all these things. But by this reasoning we should think that God would not deceive him with regard to anything, and yet this is clearly not true. If we suppose there is no God, then there is even greater likelihood of being deceived, since our imperfect senses would not have been created by a perfect being.

The Meditator finds it almost impossible to keep his habitual opinions and assumptions out of his head, try as he might. He resolves to pretend that these opinions are totally false and imaginary in order to counter-balance his habitual way of thinking. He supposes that not God, but some evil demon has committed itself to deceiving him so that everything he thinks he knows is false. By doubting everything, he can at least be sure not to be misled into falsehood by this demon.

The First Meditation is usually approached in one of two ways. First, it can be read as setting the groundwork for the meditations that follow, where doubt is employed as a powerful tool against Aristotelian philosophy. Second, it can, and often is, read standing on its own as the foundation of modern skepticism. We will briefly discuss these complementary readings in turn...

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/meditations/section2.rhtml

[Carmody]

One of the most potent forces against finding truth, is the mentality of the body's design that makes sure the body is safe.

It is part of the autonomous system of the body. the body forms the subconscious murmurings that pass through and originate from the hindbrain, regarding the shaping of all thoughts that become sub-vocalizations in the mind.

This autonomous part really does color all thoughts before they are formed. Besides it being the primary interface for autonomous aspects of bodily control for the occupant of the given avatar.

The other connected issue, is that each and every thing that the body encounters is assessed via a checklist of items, before it is consciously recognized.

The FIRST ITEM on this list is danger/no danger. tied to that first response check parameter is Fear/No-fear.

Depending on the results of that parameter check or 'subroutine' as a programmer might call it, we decide to move onto other things.


This means, in the context of all these unconscious or subconscious aspects.. unrealized.. beneath the surface....that we primarily live in a 'NEGATIVE PROOFING' world, first and foremost. Heck, scientific methodology is based on negative proofing. This is the downfall that holds the entire scientific community back from advancing. the scientists and experiments who turn this sort of thinking on it's head are the ones who move forward. And they move forward very, very, very fast, once they dismiss the fault of 'negative proofing mindsets'.

Their compatriots move very slowly as they act as a braking force among themselves, as comunicat6ions outside of the mind always occur one layer lower in mentality until we get to the herd response of groups, which is the lowest level. Eg: your mind is clear, you can't communicate it clearly to others... and a group of you act as animals in a herd. (each enlarged communication is one layer lower)

In this way, a large part of the population lives in a 'negative proofing' mindset, and think that this is perfectly normal..even when in modern times..we don't need a foremost 'danger/no-danger' "assess/response" as the primary aspect of existence..

That we are heavily manipulated via these parameters. Both consciously and unconsciously. By ourselves..and forces and people outside of ourselves.


Recognize the source of the issues, at the fundamental level, then it can be dealt with.

Our problem has never been information.

it has always been the minds and bodies of the persons, these duality beings..with conscious and unconscious auto-hypnotic parameters..and that those duality states are looking at the world and reacting about and on it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Negative proofing could be defined as: a core unconscious autonomous thought formation methodology that believes nothing exists and nothing is safe, until it is proven to be safe and real. Which is dangerous and leaves little to no room for advancement of humanity or the individual...as it leaves emotions and the body in charge..

When you sit down and look at what is the origin of the negative proofing mindset... it begins to be clear.

It is a form of a severe circular mindset, as it is well known that the mind can't even see an object, and that the mind had to learn how to see, how to understand color, how to define objects, how to interpret touch, all of it. Thus one might then begin to understand how dangerous a negative proofing mindset is, with regard to basic reality interpretation.

Watch yourself - every waking second. Only then will one begin to understand how pervasive and complete the trap is.

[Arrowwind]

What is of more interest to me is why people fail to recognize or acknowledge those "conspiracy theories" that are fully based in reality
such as the bankers of the world endeavoring to control everything, including the reduction of population,
that 9/11 was an inside job to get us into war,
that pharmceutical companies know how to cure cancer but withhold it from us,
that free energy machine designers have been thwarted and murdered
along also with those who have cured cancer.
That the FDA is controlled by the AMA
and the AMAs reason and purpose for existence is to repress true healing modalities.
Why do so many people walk around with their freakin heads in the sand?

People like this guy your talking about is just a dam idiot, along with that quackwatch joker, Stephen Barrett.

I'm a conspiracy theorist and proud of it.

[Earth Angel]

yes !! I agree totally Arrowwind....... why don't we just call them Conspiracy FACTS because in many cases that's what they are.........the term Conspiracy theory was created so people like us can be put down, swept under the carpet, made fun of, kept in our place afraid to say anything to people because as soon as you do they tell you Oh You're one of thoooooose ! conspiracy nuts ! ........ I would rather be a conspiracy nut than asleep.

[Maia Gabrial]

I don't quite agree with you, Vivek.

If something "smells" it usually means that there's something stinky there. It's not that people believe in disinformation, it's that their conscious minds sensed something was not right about something.
The disinformation comes from the cover ups....No matter how much they try to bury the smelly things, it's too late when people have already gotten a whiff of it....

[shadowstalker]

How about CONSPIRACY ACKNOWLEDGERS.
As we see the facts of the conspiracy presented to us..

A theorist makes up the idea of what happened to explain the event with out proof.

[Camilo]

Because people don't exercise discernment, because they're not awake and aware.

[another bob]

Watch yourself - every waking second. Only then will one begin to understand how pervasive and complete the trap is.

Good point!

On the lighter side . . .


http://i47.tinypic.com/aeb7np.jpg

[Jeffrey]

I haven't posited my opinion, you are disagreeing with your own assumptions. Stench comes from decay or rot - and durians.


I don't quite agree with you, Vivek.

If something "smells" it usually means that there's something stinky there. It's not that people believe in disinformation, it's that their conscious minds sensed something was not right about something.
The disinformation comes from the cover ups....No matter how much they try to bury the smelly things, it's too late when people have already gotten a whiff of it....

[Jeffrey]

One of the most potent forces against finding truth, is the mentality of the body's design that makes sure the body is safe.

It is part of the autonomous system of the body. the body forms the subconscious murmurings that pass through and originate from the hindbrain, regarding the shaping of all thoughts that become sub-vocalizations in the mind.

This autonomous part really does color all thoughts before they are formed. Besides it being the primary interface for autonomous aspects of bodily control for the occupant of the given avatar.

The other connected issue, is that each and every thing that the body encounters is assessed via a checklist of items, before it is consciously recognized.

The FIRST ITEM on this list is danger/no danger. tied to that first response check parameter is Fear/No-fear.

Depending on the results of that parameter check or 'subroutine' as a programmer might call it, we decide to move onto other things.

This means, in the context of all these unconscious or subconscious aspects.. unrealized.. beneath the surface....that we primarily live in a 'NEGATIVE PROOFING' world, first and foremost. Heck, scientific methodology is based on negative proofing. This is the downfall that holds the entire scientific community back from advancing. the scientists and experiments who turn this sort of thinking on it's head are the ones who move forward. And they move forward very, very, very fast, once they dismiss the fault of 'negative proofing mindsets'.

Their compatriots move very slowly as they act as a braking force among themselves, as comunicat6ions outside of the mind always occur one layer lower in mentality until we get to the herd response of groups, which is the lowest level. Eg: your mind is clear, you can't communicate it clearly to others... and a group of you act as animals in a herd. (each enlarged communication is one layer lower)

In this way, a large part of the population lives in a 'negative proofing' mindset, and think that this is perfectly normal..even when in modern times..we don't need a foremost 'danger/no-danger' "assess/response" as the primary aspect of existence..

That we are heavily manipulated via these parameters. Both consciously and unconsciously. By ourselves..and forces and people outside of ourselves.


Recognize the source of the issues, at the fundamental level, then it can be dealt with.

Our problem has never been information.

it has always been the minds and bodies of the persons, these duality beings..with conscious and unconscious auto-hypnotic parameters..and that those duality states are looking at the world and reacting about and on it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Negative proofing could be defined as: a core unconscious autonomous thought formation methodology that believes nothing exists and nothing is safe, until it is proven to be safe and real. Which is dangerous and leaves little to no room for advancement of humanity or the individual...as it leaves emotions and the body in charge..

When you sit down and look at what is the origin of the negative proofing mindset... it begins to be clear.

It is a form of a severe circular mindset, as it is well known that the mind can't even see an object, and that the mind had to learn how to see, how to understand color, how to define objects, how to interpret touch, all of it. Thus one might then begin to understand how dangerous a negative proofing mindset is, with regard to basic reality interpretation.

Watch yourself - every waking second. Only then will one begin to understand how pervasive and complete the trap is.

Alright, pursuing this line of thought.




The R-Complex

It is the deepest section of the brain, located underneath the larger brain mass. Known as the R-Complex, this part of the brain is comprised of the brain stem and the cerebellum. The R stands for Reptile. This section of the brain has been nicknamed the Reptile Brain due to the fact that the behavioral traits for which it is responsible are most often observed in and associated with reptiles. These include pure survival instinct, direct stimulus-response, fight-or-flight response, competition, aggression, domination, repetition, ritual, and the desire to hoard resources...

Source: http://www.whatonearthishappening.com/part-1-the-solution/65-the-triune-brain

This is the origin of the negative proofing mindset.

Couple this with Descartes Evil Genius Hypothesis and we are really on to something good.




The evil demon, sometimes referred to as the evil genius, is a concept in Cartesian philosophy. In his 1641 Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes hypothesises the existence of an evil demon, a personification who is "as clever and deceitful as he is powerful, who has directed his entire effort to misleading me." The evil demon presents a complete illusion of an external world, including other minds, to Descartes' senses, where in fact there is no such external world in existence. The evil genius also presents to Descartes' senses a complete illusion of his own body, including all bodily sensations, when in fact Descartes has no body. Most Cartesian scholars opine that the evil demon is also omnipotent, and thus capable of altering mathematics and the fundamentals of logic.

Another such method of systematic doubt is the deus deceptor (French dieu trompeur), the "deceptive god". Cartesian scholars differ in their opinions as to whether the deus deceptor and the evil demon are one and the same...

Kennington states that the evil demon is never declared by Descartes to be omnipotent, merely to be not less powerful than he is necessarily deceitful, and thus not explicitly an equivalent to an omnipotent God. The evil demon is capable of simulating an external world and bodily sensations, but incapable of rendering dubious things that are independent of trust in the senses, such as pure mathematics, eternal truths, and the principle of contradiction.

More Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon

This is both a physiological and psychological problem. The problem with trying to prove it's agenticicty is the same kind of problem that Truthers have with the 911 comission report, or with cigarette companies funding there own research into investigating the negative effects on health that are linked with the very products they sell (cigarettes are addictive, just like beliefs).

I think too there are critical distinctions between duality as it pertains to balance and harmony. Take for example the cells of the body. We can label healthy cells good and unhealthy, cancerous cells bad. Now, there is our duality. So, does someone find harmony through balancing the ratio between healthy/good cells and unhealthy/bad cells? No, harmony/health is reestablished in the body by eliminating (or transforming) the bad cells, not seeking balance between there dualistic counterparts.

Or instead of bad cells being playing the antagonist, we could consider the Cordyceps Fungus in the same manner.

XuKjBIBBAL8

Thinking we are acting autonomously is usually the first sign that we are deluded. Even if we only consider the physical structures of the R-Complex/Hindbrain and it's function, much less the metaphysical side of things.




The idea of Dependent Co-Origination is illustrated in the context of the film through the illusion of the matrix. The viability of the matrix’s illusion depends upon the belief by those enmeshed in it that the matrix itself is reality. A.I.’s software program is, in and of itself, no illusion at all. Only when humans interact with its programs do they become enmeshed in a corporately-created illusion, the matrix, or samsara, which reinforces itself through the interactions of those beings involved within it. Thus the matrix’s reality only exists when actual human minds subjectively experience its programs.

Quote from: http://nisargadatta.net/Matrix/matrix_philosophy_1.htm

[Maia Gabrial]

I haven't posited my opinion, you are disagreeing with your own assumptions. Stench comes from decay or rot - and durians.

What I'm saying is that no matter how much they try to cover something up, if people became aware of it first, then it's too late to try to hide it. Calling them "conspiracy theorists" is just to mock and discredit them. But we all know that most theories become fact because conspiracy theorists wouldn't let go until it became fact.
So, I guess you didn't get the odor analogy....

[Jeffrey]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxeo2jpAwm1qgqsks.jpg

[Praxis]

0123456789

[Jeffrey]

Consensus reality is an approach to answering the philosophical question "What is real?" It gives a practical answer: reality is either what exists, or what we can agree seems to exist.

The process has been (perhaps loosely and a bit imprecisely) characterised as "when enough people think something is true, it... takes on a life of its own". The term is usually used disparagingly as by implication it may mean little more than "what a group or culture chooses to believe", and may bear little or no relationship to any "true reality", and, indeed, challenges the notion of "true reality".

The difficulty with the question stems from the concern that human beings do not in fact fully understand or agree upon the nature of knowledge or knowing, and therefore (it is often argued) it is not possible to be certain beyond doubt what is real.

Accordingly, this line of logic concludes, we cannot in fact be sure beyond doubt about the nature of reality. We can, however, seek to obtain some form of consensus, with others, of what is real. We can use this consensus as a pragmatic guide, either on the assumption that it seems to approximate some kind of valid reality, or simply because it is more "practical" than perceived alternatives. Consensus reality therefore refers to the agreed-upon concepts of reality which people in the world, or a culture or group, believe are real (or treat as real), usually based upon their common experiences as they believe them to be; anyone who does not agree with these is sometimes stated to be "in effect... living in a different world."

Throughout history this has also raised a social question: "What shall we make of those who do not agree with consensus realities of others, or of the society they live in?"

Children have sometimes been described or viewed as "inexperience[d] with consensus reality," although with the expectation that they will come into line with it as they mature. However, the answer is more diverse as regards such people as have been characterised as eccentrics, mentally ill, enlightened or divinely inspired, or evil or demonic in nature. Alternatively, differing viewpoints may simply be put to some kind of "objective" (though the nature of "objectivity" goes to the heart of the relevant questions) test. Cognitive liberty is the freedom to be the individual's own director of the individual's own consciousness and is fundamentally opposed to enforcement of the culturally accepted reality upon non-conforming individuals. Effects of low cognitive liberty vary from indifference to forced-medication and from social alienation to incarceration to death.

Continue Reading Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_reality

[Jeffrey]

Non-Ordinary Reason

Gnostics explored these questions in a sober and consistent way, but to follow in their tracks we must first observe a caveat: Do not expect the inquiry into the Archons to be rational. At least not in the ordinary sense of rationality. Aristotle stated that the mark of a mature mind is to entertain an idea without accepting it — without "buying" it , as we say today. I am not insisting that anyone buy the Archon theory of Gnosticism. I propose that we examine and sample it, that's all. Skepticism is essential when it comes to the enigma of the Archons.

This inquiry calls for application of a special faculty that might be called non-ordinary reason. What this is can be illustrated by a Woody Allen joke (from the film Manhattan):



A man comes to a psychiatrist in behalf of his brother who suffers the affliction of believing he is a chicken, and behaving accordingly. "It's terrible to see, Doctor. The way he goes around clucking and scratching. The family is going through hell with this. What can you do? Can psychiatry help my brother?" The doctor responds that certainly it can. "Even in advanced delusions like this, therapy can often bring the patient back to reality," the doctor assures him. "I am willing to work with your brother, to do whatever it takes. It will be a long haul, though." Assuming that the man is encouraged, the psychiatrist consults his agenda. "When can you bring your brother in for the first session?" he asks. Suddenly the man furrows his brow. "Sorry, Doc. I'd like to, but I can't do that. I really can't. We need the eggs."

The man's response is entirely rational within the context of his imagination. When Trekkies (devotees of the cult TV series, Star Trek) avidly discuss characters and events in the series, they are using non-ordinary reason. The Pokeman card-trading phenomena triggered an explosion of non-ordinary reason in which children had to recite in rigorous detail the behaviors and traits specific to over a hundred different entities. In Internet MMORPGs (Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games) players assume fictional identities that must behave in consistent way, exhibiting a kind of virtual rationality. The reasoning involved in such role-playing is rigorous, for players cannot cause their "avatars" to do anything they like. The avatars must have specific codes of behavior. Developing and maintaining such codes involves non-ordinary reason.

In effect, non-ordinary reason is just like ordinary reason, except that its subject matter is imagined rather than perceived.

Gnostic seers had to be skilled in non-ordinary reason to interpret the experiences they underwent in states of heightened perception. Not everything in the cosmos or in the human psyche can be reduced to rational terms, of course, and that in any case is not the point of non-ordinary reasoning. The point is, to bring sane and sober understanding to aspects of human experience that lie beyond the limits of ordinary sense perception.

Excerpt Source: http://www.metahistory.org/gnostique/archonfiles/AlienDreaming.php

[Praxis]

0123456789

[Jeffrey]

Vivek: Please provide a diageram that explains the stresses that occurred to these beams during 9-11.
Skeptical mind is good. But all too often it is an excuse to close your mind to ideas that would FORCE you to change your thoughts about reality, government, people, capitalism, etc.

Honestly if you believe the official story of 9-11 and disregard "conspiracy theories" then why are you even here?

9ofClubs: Please provide a diagram that explains why you think you know what I think.

Actually, on second thought, don't do that.

This is not a debunking thread. It's about forms/degrees of skepticism, critical thinking, analysis, and pitfalls along the way for Truth seekers. You are arguing with yourself here.

[Praxis]

01234567891

[Jeffrey]

In statistical test theory the notion of statistical error is an integral part of hypothesis testing. The test requires an unambiguous statement of a null hypothesis, which usually corresponds to a default "state of nature", for example "this person is healthy", "this accused is not guilty" or "this product is not broken". An alternative hypothesis is the negation of null hypothesis, for example, "this person is not healthy", "this accused is guilty" or "this product is broken". The result of the test may be negative, relative to null hypothesis (not healthy, guilty, broken) or positive (healthy, not guilty, not broken). If the result of the test corresponds with reality, then a correct decision has been made. However, if the result of the test does not correspond with reality, then an error has occurred. Due to the statistical nature of a test, the result is never, except in very rare cases, free of error. Two types of error are distinguished: type I error and type II error.

Type I error

A type I error, also known as an error of the first kind, occurs when the null hypothesis (H0) is true, but is rejected. It is asserting something that is absent, a false hit. A type I error may be compared with a so called false positive (a result that indicates that a given condition is present when it actually is not present) in tests where a single condition is tested for. Type I errors are philosophically a focus of skepticism and Occam's razor. A Type I error occurs when we believe a falsehood.[1] In terms of folk tales, an investigator may be "crying wolf" without a wolf in sight (raising a false alarm) (H0: no wolf).

The rate of the type I error is called the size of the test and denoted by the Greek letter (alpha). It usually equals the significance level of a test. In the case of a simple null hypothesis is the probability of a type I error. If the null hypothesis is composite, is the maximum (supremum) of the possible probabilities of a type I error.

False positive error

A false positive error, commonly called a "false alarm" is a result that indicates a given condition has been fulfilled, when it actually has not been fulfilled. In the case of "crying wolf" - the condition tested for was "is there a wolf near the herd?", the actual result was that there had not been a wolf near the herd. The shepherd wrongly indicated there was one, by calling "Wolf, wolf!".

A false positive error is a Type I error where the test is checking a single condition, and results in an affirmative or negative decision usually designated as "true or false".

Type II error

A type II error, also known as an error of the second kind, occurs when the null hypothesis is false, but it is erroneously accepted as true. It is missing to see what is present, a miss. A type II error may be compared with a so-called false negative (where an actual 'hit' was disregarded by the test and seen as a 'miss') in a test checking for a single condition with a definitive result of true or false. A Type II error is committed when we fail to believe a truth.[1] In terms of folk tales, an investigator may fail to see the wolf ("failing to raise an alarm"; see Aesop's story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf). Again, H0: no wolf.

The rate of the type II error is denoted by the Greek letter (beta) and related to the power of a test (which equals ).

What we actually call type I or type II error depends directly on the null hypothesis. Negation of the null hypothesis causes type I and type II errors to switch roles.

The goal of the test is to determine if the null hypothesis can be rejected. A statistical test can either reject (prove false) or fail to reject (fail to prove false) a null hypothesis, but never prove it true (i.e., failing to reject a null hypothesis does not prove it true).

False negative error

A false negative error is where a test result indicates that a condition failed, while it actually was successful. A common example is a guilty prisoner freed from jail. The condition: "Is the prisoner guilty?" actually had a positive result (yes, he is guilty). But the test failed to realize this, and wrongly decided the prisoner was not guilty.

A false negative error is a type II error occurring in test steps where a single condition is checked for and the result can either be positive or negative.

More Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors

[ulli]

we primarily live in a 'NEGATIVE PROOFING' world, first and foremost.

Heck, scientific methodology is based on negative proofing. This is the downfall that holds the entire scientific community back from advancing.

The scientists and experiments who turn this sort of thinking on it's head are the ones who move forward.

And they move forward very, very, very fast




That's it in a nutshell.
But in a way it also means all of today's science will be obsolete.
Totally new methods of finding consensus have to be searched for.

[Jeffrey]

Psychology

Self-deception calls into question the nature of the individual, specifically in a psychological context and the nature of "self". Irrationality is the foundation upon which the argued paradoxes of self-deception stem, and it is argued that not everyone has the "special talents" and capacities for self-deception. However, rationalization is influenced by a myriad of factors, including socialization, personal biases, fear, and cognitive repression. Such rationalization can be manipulated in both positive and negative fashions; convincing one to perceive a negative situation optimistically and vice versa. In contrast, rationalization alone cannot effectively clarify the dynamics of self-deception, as reason is just one adaptive form mental processes can take.

Trivers' theory of self-deception

It has been theorized that humans are susceptible to self-deception because most people have emotional attachments to beliefs, which in some cases may be irrational. Some evolutionary biologists, such as Robert Trivers, have suggested[6] that deception plays a significant part in human behavior, and in animal behavior, more generally speaking. One deceives oneself to trust something that is not true as to better convince others of that truth. When a person convinces her or himself of this untrue thing, s/he better mask the signs of deception.

This notion is based on the following logic: deception is a fundamental aspect of communication in nature, both between and within species. It has evolved so that one can have an advantage over another. From alarm calls to mimicry, animals use deception to further their survival. Those who are better able to perceive deception are more likely to survive. As a result, self-deception evolved to better mask deception from those who perceive it well, as Trivers puts it: "Hiding the truth from yourself to hide it more deeply from others." In humans, awareness of the fact that one is acting deceptively often leads to tell-tale signs of deception, such as nostrils flaring, clammy skin, quality and tone of voice, eye movement, or excessive blinking. Therefore, if self-deception enables someone to believe her or his own distortions, s/he will not present such signs of deception and will therefore appear to be telling the truth.

Self-deception can be used both to act greater or lesser than one actually is. For example, one can act overconfident to attract a mate or act under-confident to avoid a predator or threat. If a person is capable of concealing her or his true feelings and intentions well, then s/he is more likely to deceive others and succeed.

It may also be argued that the ability to deceive, or self-deceive, is not the selected trait but a by-product of a more primary trait called abstract thinking. Abstract thinking allows many evolutionary advantages such as more flexible, adaptive behaviors and innovation. Since a lie is an abstraction, the mental process of creating a lie can only occur in animals with enough brain complexity to permit abstract thinking. Self-deception lowers cognitive cost; that is to say, it is less complicated for one to behave or think in a certain manner that implies something is true, if one has convinced oneself that that very thing is indeed true. The mind will not have to think constantly of the true thing and then the false thing, but simply convince itself that the false thing is true.

Evolutionary implications of Trivers' theory of self-deception

Because there is deceit, there exists a strong selection to recognize when deception occurs. As a result, self-deception evolves so as to better hide the signs of deception from others. The presence of deception explains the existence of an innate ability to commit self-deception to hide the indications of deceptions. Humans deceive themselves in order to better deceive others and thus have an advantage over them. In the three decades since Trivers introduced his adaptive theory of self-deception, there has been an ongoing debate over the question of such behavior having a genetic basis.

The explanation of deception and self-deception as innate characteristics is perhaps true, but there are very many other explanations for this pattern of behavior. It is possible that the ability to self-deceive is not innate, but a learned trait, acquired through experience. For example, a person could have been caught being deceitful by revealing her/his knowledge of information she/he was trying to hide. Her/his nostrils flared, indicating that she/he was lying to the other person, and she/he thus did not get what she/he wanted. Next time, to better achieve success, the person will more actively deceive her/himself of having knowledge to better hide the signs of deception. People therefore could have the capacity to learn self-deception.

Read More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception

[Lettherebelight]

A good question to be raised, Vivek.

Because, and please forgive me as I quote Vedanta, all humans have four defects.

1. They have imperfect senses.
2. They have a propensity to cheat.
3. They are prone to illusion.
4. They make mistakes.

So given these conditions, people may believe in something incorrectly, but they could also get it right. We all know there have been lies told down the centuries, and the consensus have accepted them as fact. It is possible that the consensus will also choose something to believe that is in fact, fact!

[ThePythonicCow]

The title of this thread has been changed, at the request of the original poster, from



Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories
to



Self Deception and Other Pitfalls for the Seeker

[Kindred]

I haven't posited my opinion, you are disagreeing with your own assumptions. Stench comes from decay or rot - and durians.

[

Vivek... While posting all those pieces that provide technical and psychological 'detail' of how humans think and respond to information is of some validity, I think it's time to specify what You believe. Simply providing already documented affirmations of what Not to believe, and 'why', without looking at the details of some Very valid cases of true conspiracies, does Not make a strong argument for No conspiracies.

In such a case, I don't believe you. :biggrin::eyebrows:

[sirdipswitch]

No wonder, ETs don't wanna land here.

love and peace... children!
sirdipswitch

[Arpheus]

Lol you are going to base this stuff on a bunch of garbage that has no value whatsoever for the most part?We all know that all this scholar crap cant and shouldnt be used to back up anything that has to do with true psychology,lets be honest here,Jung figure that out without much effort and his final conclusion was that we simply dont know enough about our own behavioral patterns and the things that trigger us to act think and react to stuff the way we do,so lets leave all this shrink junk aside and be fair here,our race still has a lot to figure it out,and its not really our fault,if we have indeed been messed with thinkered with and genetically being manipulated with for over a millenia,this whole analitical thing is nuts imho,anyone can use their brains without reason as well,i could go on and on but what would be the point?I just wish we could push a reset button and start over fresh teaching our kids the real history of the human race wich we yet do not know to begin with!!

[Jeffrey]

I think everyone should think for themselves, so why should anyone care what I think?

nullius in verba

[Kindred]

I truly don't want to "beat a dead horse", but one must look at the facts and realize that there Are conspiracies... whether you wish to believe it or not...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wq2pGd9ViUM

And, I truly like this one by G. Edward Griffin... G. Edward Griffin - The Collectivist Conspiracy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdu0N1-tvU

The first 10 min's are all you need, but the entire piece is pertinent to this thread.

In Unity, Peace and Love

[Unified Serenity]

Lots of people say they are truth seekers, but they don't want the real truth. They are wishful thinkers and hopium addicts. The like cute slogans and praise, but dare not look or think critically about this world and reality. This clip is for all you willing to look deep within the heart and soul of humanity and where we are, and for those who don't like what we tell them:

5j2F4VcBmeo

While this is a snarky sarcastic post, I am actually in a much better place. Sorry I'm not all

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rrKZcMy22JM/T_BCvRGjheI/AAAAAAAAAc0/lM-frvgXbxI/s400/Supernatural+7x14+%28743%29.jpg

[NancyV]

In numerous studies, neurobiologist Brugger has searched for the underlying physiological principles of apophenia and paranormal beliefs. He has found that “people with high levels of dopamine are more likely to find significance in coincidences, and pick out meaning and patterns where there are none,”
I guess I have high levels of dopamine. Some strange coincidences happened the other day and I tried like hell to find some kind of paranormal meaning in the event. I was sitting at my desk downstairs when I heard a thud from upstairs, so I went up to see what had happened. A framed photo of my dead mother had fallen on the floor.

I casually thought "I wonder if she's trying to contact me!" LOL... But then I thought that the sticky hanger I had put on the back of the photo had just given way because of the weight of the glass and frame. Logic won out over something paranormal. I returned to my desk downstairs and about a half hour later, I heard ANOTHER thud on the floor. So I went upstairs again and saw a framed photo of my dead uncle which had fallen on the floor. I thought, wow...I wonder what my uncle is trying to tell me! But since I had hung both photos on the same day 6 months previously, it seemed like this was merely a coincidence and both of the sticky backings I had put on the photos just happened to give way on the same day within a half hour of each other. I went back downstairs.

About an hour later a HUGE crash happened downstairs. I watched as a very large painting my 2nd husband had painted for me about 35 years ago fell to the floor. This painting was hung on the wall on the same day as the photos upstairs, BUT it was hung on a metal picture hanger which was nailed at an angle into the wall. So my theory of the backing giving way on the falling photos did not fit the large painting falling. At this point my best friend called. I told her about it and we both laughed. While we were laughing I heard another loud thud from upstairs, so we hung up and I went upstairs and found a framed photo of my dead sister and me when we were about 2 and 3 years old, fallen to the floor. Now it was getting REALLY funny! There must be some kind of paranormal conspiracy going on!

I called my friend back to tell her the new development and while we were on the phone....yep, you guessed it....I heard ANOTHER thud from upstairs. This wasn't a very loud one but I went up to see. The photo of my mother, which I had leaned against the wall, had fallen forward and hit the floor. So now I'm thinking maybe a poltergeist? LOL... I decided the best thing for me to do since there was no way I would really KNOW what was going on was to say something just in case there was some spirit doing this. So I loudly said "OKAY, enough of this crap! If you're trying to communicate with me, find another way to do it because I'm starting to get pissed off!"

That seemed to stop the falling of my dead people. I still haven't hung the painting back up. Well, it stopped until just about an hour ago when I heard another loud crash from upstairs. Sure enough it was the photo of my dead mother which I had rehung, fallen to the floor again.

So these could definitely be coincidences, but it could also be something else. Who knows? I find it to be quite amusing and it doesn't really bother me. If someone is trying to drive me crazy, it won't work since I'm probably already bonkers. Scaring me doesn't work either. Now I have to consider that I might have "apophenia" and high levels of dopamine! LOL... Thanks for the new theory.

[Jeffrey]

BHihkRwisbE

[Jeffrey]

CSmgL43sSWY