90% of Americans believe at least one conspiracy theory (1 Viewer)

guess this can go here
=============

The internet has been a huge boon for the accessibility of information. There are very few barriers to consuming classic literature or detailed scientific analyses or catalogues of news reports. There is also an exorbitant amount of garbage information, of course, and an entire universe of people who say stuff that they think will get people to click links that will earn themselves money.

While confidence in American institutions has been in decline for some time, it’s not hard to imagine how the economic incentives of the internet contribute. There is an outsize appetite for derogatory, counterintuitive or anti-institutional assessments of the world around us. This is in part because alleged scandals are interesting and in part because Americans like to view themselves as independent analysts of the world around us.

The result is that there is both a supply and a demand for nonsense or appealingly framed errors. Americans who have little trust in the system can easily find something to reinforce their skepticism. They often do.

This month, Nieman Lab’s Josh Benton reported on research released last year that showed how people “doing their own research” on the internet often led them to gain more confidence in untrue information. The paper, titled “Online searches to evaluate misinformation can increase its perceived veracity,” was written by researchers from the University of Central Florida, New York University and Stanford. Their conclusions were straightforward.

“Although conventional wisdom suggests that searching online when evaluating misinformation would reduce belief in it, there is little empirical evidence to evaluate this claim,” the authors wrote. Instead, they continued: “We present consistent evidence that online search to evaluate the truthfulness of false news articles actually increases the probability of believing them.”

Later, they summarize the process, “When individuals search online about misinformation, they are more likely to be exposed to lower-quality information than when individuals search about true news” and “those who are exposed to low-quality information are more likely to believe false/misleading news stories to be true relative to those who are not.”

Look for info; see bad info; accept the bad info.

The mechanism is explored at length but, in short, false claims or other rumors often generate fewer hits on Google, meaning searchers are more likely to encounter unreliable information that aligns with their assumptions. (The paper is dense; Benton’s summary is useful.)...............


Don’t try and change my preconceived notion!
 
hit one of those in Arkansas, It was 55 in the mountain, but as soon as i got to the bottom to the town, it turned 35.
So i got a 55 in a 35 ticket. When i got home i called about the ticket. They said since i was from out of state, i had to come to court. I told them i lived over 8 hours away and tha it would be really hard for me to make it back up there. "no problem sir, for a $200 court surcharge, you can pay it my mail" So instead of sending them the $390 (something like that) i just said fork them and never paid it. That was in like 1998, and they never came knocking so i guess i'm good.
If i have a warrant, it must only be in Arkansas, because i've been pulled over a few time here in La...
Years ago Maryland and Delaware did not have reciprocity on ticket points. I lived in Maryland and got 5-6 speeding tickets in De, which I never paid. They sent me a bench warrant notice so I quit speeding in De. I broke up with the reason for the speeding tickets, who lived in De.

Meanwhile Nationwide gave me a safe driver discount because I had no points on my Maryland drivers license 😊
 
I prefer to believe it but, as an agnostic, I like a little more info before buying in.
In Buddhism there exists the concept of Maya, or illusion. In essence, existence in this world is so fleeting as to be meaningless. We get so entangled in this illusion that we fail to comprehend our own true selves, and the truth of the world around us.

I have no problem with the notion that this world is illusion, but suffering in this world is very real—-to those of us who suffer.
 
Last edited:
Like Henry Ford before him, Elon Musk has emerged as America’s top conspiracy spreader. But he’s hardly alone. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the conspiracy-theory candidate for president, and as Paul Krugman observed last summer, was attracting “support from some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley”:

Jack Dorsey, who founded Twitter, has endorsed him, while some other prominent tech figures have been holding fund-raisers on his behalf. Elon Musk, who is in the process of destroying what Dorsey built, hosted him for a Twitter Spaces event.
Krugman didn't focus on conspiracy theory as such but on something closely related: distrust of experts and skepticism about widely accepted facts. He described this tendency as the “brain rotting drug” of reflexive contrarianism, quoting economist Adam Ozimek.

That wasn’t exactly scientific, but a new paper entitled “The Status Foundations of Conspiracy Beliefs” by Saverio Roscigno, a PhD candidate at the University of California, Irvine, is. Its most eye-catching finding is the discovery of “a cluster of graduate-degree-holding white men who display a penchant for conspiracy beliefs” that are “distinctively taboo.”

Specifically, Roscigno writes, “approximately a quarter of those who hold a graduate degree agree or strongly agree” that school shootings like those at Sandy Hook and Parkland “are false flag attacks perpetrated by the government,” which is “around twice the rate of those without graduate degrees.” Results are similar for the proposition that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust “has been exaggerated on purpose.”

These findings are striking for many reasons. Most obviously, they go against the common belief — long supported by research — that conspiracist beliefs are more common among lower-income and less-educated individuals. They also challenge the formulation popularized by Joseph Uscinski that "conspiracy theories are for losers," and should be understood as “alarm systems and coping mechanisms to help deal with foreign threat and domestic power centers” that “tend to resonate when groups are suffering from loss, weakness, or disunity.”

Roscigno’s findings don’t refute previous formulations so much as reframe them by adding greater nuance. For example, he finds that conspiracy beliefs are more common both among the less educated and less affluent, on the one hand, and the more educated and more affluent on the other. Secondly, he identifies the subjective group experience of threat as a key element, rather than objective “loser” status.

Even more important, his paper reveals how much more we have to learn about conspiracy theories from a rigorous social science approach. Conspiracy theory is much more mainstream, varied and ubiquitous than previously assumed, and there’s much more to be learned from studying it as an integral part of the sociological landscape.

Like the recently published paper I previously covered here, this model breaks with dualistic approaches that in some sense mirror what we find troubling about conspiracism — that is, painting the world in black-and-white rather than in many shades of gray. I recently spoke with Roscigno by Zoom about his findings and where they might lead. This transcript has been edited for clarity and length................

 
Like Henry Ford before him, Elon Musk has emerged as America’s top conspiracy spreader. But he’s hardly alone. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the conspiracy-theory candidate for president, and as Paul Krugman observed last summer, was attracting “support from some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley”:


Krugman didn't focus on conspiracy theory as such but on something closely related: distrust of experts and skepticism about widely accepted facts. He described this tendency as the “brain rotting drug” of reflexive contrarianism, quoting economist Adam Ozimek.

That wasn’t exactly scientific, but a new paper entitled “The Status Foundations of Conspiracy Beliefs” by Saverio Roscigno, a PhD candidate at the University of California, Irvine, is. Its most eye-catching finding is the discovery of “a cluster of graduate-degree-holding white men who display a penchant for conspiracy beliefs” that are “distinctively taboo.”

Specifically, Roscigno writes, “approximately a quarter of those who hold a graduate degree agree or strongly agree” that school shootings like those at Sandy Hook and Parkland “are false flag attacks perpetrated by the government,” which is “around twice the rate of those without graduate degrees.” Results are similar for the proposition that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust “has been exaggerated on purpose.”

These findings are striking for many reasons. Most obviously, they go against the common belief — long supported by research — that conspiracist beliefs are more common among lower-income and less-educated individuals. They also challenge the formulation popularized by Joseph Uscinski that "conspiracy theories are for losers," and should be understood as “alarm systems and coping mechanisms to help deal with foreign threat and domestic power centers” that “tend to resonate when groups are suffering from loss, weakness, or disunity.”

Roscigno’s findings don’t refute previous formulations so much as reframe them by adding greater nuance. For example, he finds that conspiracy beliefs are more common both among the less educated and less affluent, on the one hand, and the more educated and more affluent on the other. Secondly, he identifies the subjective group experience of threat as a key element, rather than objective “loser” status.

Even more important, his paper reveals how much more we have to learn about conspiracy theories from a rigorous social science approach. Conspiracy theory is much more mainstream, varied and ubiquitous than previously assumed, and there’s much more to be learned from studying it as an integral part of the sociological landscape.

Like the recently published paper I previously covered here, this model breaks with dualistic approaches that in some sense mirror what we find troubling about conspiracism — that is, painting the world in black-and-white rather than in many shades of gray. I recently spoke with Roscigno by Zoom about his findings and where they might lead. This transcript has been edited for clarity and length................

it must be that for some in the rarified air, they've convinced themselves that they're special little boys with special little brains and they think more better than us plebes
 
it must be that for some in the rarified air, they've convinced themselves that they're special little boys with special little brains and they think more better than us plebes
I have a graduate degree and I don't believe that garbage. I don't know a lot of people who have a graduate degree but I wouldn't waste their time talking to them about conspiracy theories.
 
enough humblebragging, back to the topic

After Boeing deaths, Pfizer ‘whistleblower’ puts out ‘I am not suicidal’ video
Hello everybody. My name is Melissa McAtee, also known as Melissa Strickler. I am the Pfizer whistleblower that was in manufacturing quality for about five years at Pfizer, but employed total for about ten years.

I just wanted to put a video of my face out there with my voice stating I am not suicidal. Me and my husband have a happy, healthy marriage. I love my son. I love my family.
 
How many conspiracies will this movie kick off?
the crazies will be like, see it really was a fake..lol
BUt the movie looks good..
Fly Me To The Moon
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom