▿iviv Stream My activity 23 Digit Digit Danie Danie about a year ago via Feed New study indicates conspiracy theory believers have less developed critical thinking abilities New research published in Applied Cognitive Psychology provides evidence that critical thinking skills are negatively related to belief in conspiracy theories. In other words, the study suggests that people with greater critical thinking skills are less likely to believe that terrorist attacks are being covertly directed by a country’s own government or that mind-control technology is secretly being used to control the population. “Two things can be learned from our two studies. First, the more people believe in conspiracy theories, the worse they perform on a critical thinking ability test.” “Second, if we look at the subjective feeling of being a critical thinker (rather than the critical thinking ability evaluated more objectively by the test mentioned earlier) we did not find any evidence for a higher (or lower) subjective critical thinking ability among those who subscribe more to conspiracy theories. This is not in line with the cliché of the conspiracy theorists who see themselves as critical thinkers.” See New study indicates conspiracy theory believers have less developed critical thinking abilities #criticalthinking #conspiracytheories #study #conspiracy Image/photo New research published in Applied Cognitive Psychology provides evidence that critical thinking skills are negatively related to belief in conspiracy … https://gadgeteer.co.za/new-study-indicates-conspiracy-theory-believers-have-less-developed-critical-thinking-abilities New study indicates conspiracy theory believers have less developed critical thinking abilities New research published in Applied Cognitive Psychology provides evidence that critical thinking skills are negatively related to belief in conspiracy ... 1 Khurram Wadee 2 Zé Pedro Khurram Wadee 16 Danie Danie - about a year ago @Mudflap it has nothing to do with vaccinations - this was in general around any type of conspiracy theory. It['s actually the second one as the article refers to two studies. Yes time does tell but I suppose often damage can happen in that time eg. remember weapons of mass destruction supposedly possessed by Iraq? We probably need to spend more time being educated around critical thinking. Danie Danie - about a year ago @Mudflap you’ve lost me here - I did not see any mention or reference to the pandemic or vaccination in the study - only example actually mentioned was for crtitical thinking about “defense ofthe idea that overnight parking should be prohibited in a specific area” at https://psyarxiv.com/8qhx4/?view_only=cda8d40c800e404399e1d5398d24e4c5. Unless you say where the above examples you are mentioning, are from, I’m not understanding the relevance to this study? Where did they mention anything about “doing their part during the pandemic” in the study? Danie Danie - about a year ago @Mudflap but that’s a completely different study to the one I posted about? Different authors too? One I posted about is published at https://psyarxiv.com/8qhx4/?view_only=cda8d40c800e404399e1d5398d24e4c5. and no mention of virus etc - it is a generic study into the broader concept. Danie Danie - about a year ago @Mudflap there are only three links in the article I referred to and one goes to the author, and both others go to the report. I gave a link in the previous comment that open sthe open source of the report - no mention at all about the pandemic or the virus. It was a generic study. Quite honestly, if it mentioned the pandemic, I would not have quoted it as the topic of the pandemic is over politicised and leads to no rational debate. I posted this one as it covers the topic more holistically. The current pandemic is probably worth debating in a few years when we can all look back on it with hindsight. Generic studies or those looking at the lessons of past conspiracy theories are easier to unpick as most of the facts have eventually surfaced and the dust has largely settled on what actually happened, or not. The whole current pandemic is just not with debating from my viewpoint, and I’m just too happy leaving others to think whatever they want to. Yep conspiracy theories certainly take root amongst those that will find something plausable, and also want to believe it’s true (otherwise they’d likely critically assess it). The interesting point on that second point is that those with an agenda to create a conspiracy theory, can target those that ‘want’ to believe something through fear, greed, etc by pressing the right levers. There was an interesting report a while back showing the original of some conspiracy theories and that it only takes a few people to start one. In the past we’ve seen cigarette companies, oil companies, cash reghister companies, etc all having an agenda of their own with an interest in creating conspiracy theories. Years ago it was newspapers and political lobbying, but today social media is an amazing way to get these things started. Danie Danie - about a year ago @Mudflap very true observation - on the vacuum blahblahblah@diasp.org blahblahblah@diasp.org - about a year ago really enjoyed watching your discussion you two : ) not trying to take a side or anything or upset anyone tho i obvs have my biases and stuff…, just want to leave this short five minute video to add to the discussion ♥ “how to respond to a conspiracy theorist” https://youtu.be/CJw4nHJfG-E?t=10 blahblahblah@diasp.org blahblahblah@diasp.org - about a year ago were people kinder to each other 10 years ago Mudflap? how about 20 or 30 years ago? maybe human nature is just how conveniently exposed for all to see, which can be a good and a bad thing… Danie Danie - about a year ago @Cєℓєѕтє probably true on both fronts as back then without social media comments and opinions were filtered via newspaper editors so they certainly did not go viral, and they would have been carefulaful about taking responsibility for what was published. So certainly the appearance of being kinder was there then. One wonders if we were kinder to each other back then… difficult to tell I suppose. There were certainly more societal pressures and prejudices that also played out then. It’s actually not the same world today, so some things are better for some, and for others maybe not better 😉 Danie Danie - about a year ago @Mudflap yep too many also just post without thinking (filtering) or pausing to think. We were less likely to be ugly to someone’s face in person (even today) but we would not have published our first thoughts back then in an international or national newspaper either. The power to self-publish has certainly meant much good, but also much bad for many 😉 Digit Digit - 10 days ago skipping for once, a bit on the nature, origins, deployments, effects, of the terminology of “conspiracy theory” / “conspiracy theorists”, i think the emphasis aught be on “belief”/“believers”, rather than so much on the “conspiracy theories”/“conspiracy theorists”. … though also, probably worth some scrutiny on the generalisation there too. they (conspiracy theories) cant all be alike, and doubtless a mix of madness, intentional misdirection, and genuine scrutiny of misdeeds of authority, but it serves the latter the most, to have them all be conflated, as if the former. ps, pity(?) we can no longer see mudflaps comments. testament again to quoting what responding to. Danie Danie - 10 days ago @Digit yes, quite correct the conspiracy theories are certainly all different, but they tend to push common buttons to get the reactions and behaviour being sought. The study was showing a correlation between those who fall more easily for the conspiracy and also showing lower critical thinking ability. That does make sense, as the group would also not interrogate more broadly what was being heard. Yes, Mudflap was trying to draw it into a vaccination issue, and the study has nothing to do with specific conspiracy theories, but rather the general characteristics displayed. Digit Digit - 8 days ago maybe i shouldnt have skipped it. heh. yes, quite correct the conspiracy theories are certainly all different, but they tend to push common buttons to get the reactions and behaviour being sought. what are “conspiracy theories”? / what is “conspiracy theory”? what reactions and behaviours being sought by who? i ask, in a sorta socratic/wittgensteinian way attempting to drill past communication shorthands presumed shared. The study was showing a correlation between those who fall more easily for the conspiracy and also showing lower critical thinking ability. this phrase, likewise, evokes concerns of using words differently. if people strategise to some ends together, (especially if in secret/against some other) it can be said that they conspire, and have committed a conspiracy. does this seem like correct use of the term conspire, and conspiracy? would it therefor make more sense to say “fall more easily for the theory”, than for the conspiracy? and even then there, we can perhaps start to see this is still a (mis)leading use of language, if not an outright contortion. a theory is not there to decieve. a theory is there to be entertained and scrutinised, tested and analysed. believe/disbelieve makes a poor tool with which to determine reality, and aught have no place in a scientist’s mind. and by scientist there, i mean that to include in the broadest sense, inclusive, for each all our high potential for cognititive competence. lub me a theory. loathe me a dogma. That does make sense, as the group would also not interrogate more broadly what was being heard. sorry. i’m straining to parse/grok that. the group? more broadly? being heard? Yes, Mudflap was trying to draw it into a vaccination issue, and the study has nothing to do with specific conspiracy theories, but rather the general characteristics displayed. yep, and wise to get the general, the transferable, the deeper wisdoms, than get lost in the heated distracting noises examples can be. though in the unexamined, easy to confuse our dogmas for wisdom. Danie Danie - 7 days ago @Digit Definition of conspiracy theory by Mirriam-Webster : a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators the conspiracy theories surrounding Kennedy’s assassination also : a theory asserting that a secret of great importance is being kept from the public … is best known for … his conspiracy theory that a secret cabal of reptilian humanoids is running the world. — Simon Little The point is really where a number of people hold a specific view which is contrary to actual facts. Obviously with many religious beliefs those are difficult to prove anything with facts, but still apply for example if someone were dispute something factual, eg the execution of a known person, and there was a growing belief around that misrepresentation. But yes one or two people believing something untrue is not necessarily a conspiracy theory that has taken root at all. But what is usually common in conspiracy theories, is they take root without real substance or facts of their own. It is more a belief. If a conspiracy theory was founded on proven counter facts, then it has passed beyond a mere theory. Digit Digit - 5 days ago actual facts what are they? like official doctrine? like dogma? truth from the ministry thereof? ever seems worth considering the effects of the term “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist”, even without ever having heard of the CIA’s role in if not outright coining it, certainly using/promoting it, for its main effect… to disuade scrutiny of authorities and their crimes. remarkable to watch its evolution, to be used as shorthand for ridiculous falsehood. even as far as “conspiracy” itself being used as if a synonym for a falsehood; for something that did not happen, without even mention of “theory”. living orwellian newspeak example of our times. ever worth a contemplative step back, to dwell on the psychelogical, sociological, anthropological effects. so if anyone were to theorise, about a conspiracy, what would we call it? would we remain in the contracted language and the inevitable conflations, and resultant cognitive dissonance? are all such thoughts immediately ridiculous falsehoods, because no one would ever conspire, especially not for gains, not for vast gains? … or, if this is not too contrived… i wonder if they’re ridiculous falsehoods because there’s nowhere to hide in the eyes of god (so to speak), such that there’s nowhere for the would-be-conspirators to be conspiring against, as we’re all one. ? ~ or maybe i digress too whimsically. back to something more socratic… taking But what is usually common in conspiracy theories, is they take root without real substance or facts of their own. It is more a belief. If a conspiracy theory was founded on proven counter facts, then it has passed beyond a mere theory. usually common okay. :/ in conspiracy theories, is they take root without real substance or facts of their own. It is more a belief. what size of sample set have you explored to determine this? or is it more a belief? … ;) so… not a theory then… when you say conspiracy theory, you dont mean a theory of [some specific] conspiring, you mean a baseless belief in [some specific] conspiring? (with or without that “[some specific]”… excuse my clumsy wrestling to not putting words in your mouth). does that seem fair to say? If a conspiracy theory was founded on proven counter facts, then it has passed beyond a mere theory. … reading that a few times… even after wondering what “counter facts” are, in general, and in this context, as well as proven ones at that, … “founded” … “passed”… idk… does this reveal or hint at some tautological loop? ima leave it there… i knew if i opened that notification, i’d hafta answer diligently, and i opened that notification anyway, even though too sleepy to do that proper justice. answered then anyway once i had, confident a sleepy reply better than no reply lost to time. ni ni. Danie Danie - 4 days ago @Digit yes good point raised too about specific reasons for creating conspiracy theories as they have been seen to be people furthering a “business cause”, and also sometimes to try to destabilise a country even. They are not necessarily just something that happened to go viral. For example it turns out now that we know the dairy industry was behind creating the focus on low-fat diets. On the point of facts disproving facts, the example is very much around the issues of cholesterol in diets causing blood cholesterol, and also “all calories are the same”. These made sense back in the day because they sounded logical, and probably also why they were not critically challenged, and what came out later was more context. The context for the cholesterol issue was that it was not a broad enough sample as far as countries go, and that some data had been excluded as “it did not fit in with the other data”. For reason, these newer facts that came to light essentially discredited the original theory. The tragedy though is that once something has taken root over so many decades, many are unwilling to change their minds, and still recall the original theories that have persisted so long. So “opposing facts” are often from a greater contextual view or awareness of how the original 'facts or theories" came about. This is why we saw such an upheaval in the scientific community about a year or two back, realising that peer reviews were often not honest actual “peer” reviews, and many studies got discarded and re-examined. We’ve got a lot wiser and more critical now about theories, but this study was interesting as it was, as a result of that, looking into why conspiracy theories get believed so easily when they in the first place don’t have real evidence. Real conspiracy theories sound plausible, but are connected to dots that have no real basis in being connected. You cannot connect dots as facts, if they are just unbproven theories or allegations. Digit Digit - 2 minutes ago i think the emphasis aught be on “belief”/“believers” @Digit yes good point raised too about specific reasons for creating conspiracy theories creating what? are we back to using the term with circular definition? i raised a good point about reasons for creating conspiracy theories? i’ll have to read back for that error. i aught not use that term, especially considering i’m some ways familiar with its counter-cognitive effects, and would not wish that harm upon anyone(/everyone). ah wait, i’m not sure my questions are getting answered by this, and so we seem to be dawdling here, in this journey to truth. but i’ll read on, and respond They are not necessarily just something that happened to go viral. For example it turns out now that we know the dairy industry was behind creating the focus on low-fat diets. “They” being “conspiracy theories”, i presume, yes? i’m not sure that example helps your argument, offering as it does a claim of shared knowledge, and, it seems from the phrase “was behind” to imply sole directing influence, and then further “the focus on low-fat diets”, … what low fat diet focus? “the”… curious. i can sure entertain the idea there’d be those in positions of influence in the power-structures and hierarchies who can and would sow ideas into the publics’ minds, and i can also entertain ideas how they’d have interests against this too, or use this to misdirect from other concerns, and lots more, even much with evidence trails i d dont doubt, if i so sought, but i dont think i know, [especially in the way characterised, as implying motives on “the dairy industry”] and so, i’m not party to this “we”, and so it further falls flat as an example for me. it’s interesting though, to first see this piece seem presented as a sort of “take-down” “ha! gotcha!” against “conspiracy theory believers”, but now seems to be offering a theory of just the very ilk i most often seen presented as being “conspiracy theory” [and typically to discredit it, as if a synonym for silly farcical falsehood, as is in keeping with use of the phrase as a psyop term to disuade scrutiny of authorities and wrong-doers (or, rather, at least, doers of that which would be largely unpopular and hard to hide). … though that’s getting to be a bit of a headspin in itself, and i’m trying to unspin and get clearer views]. On the point of facts disproving facts, maybe you’re reading rhetoric between the lines that i did not intend put there, but, rather than a point made about disproving facts, i sought clarification of what they were. when i asked what actual facts were, i had genuinely sought an answer… but… without any direct answer to that being apparent to me yet in your reply, i am kinda leaning to the idea that this is a case of not wanting to question and challenge ones own presumptions, and declaring them facts. but … that’s fairly wild, as i can imagine (i can imagine) many other possibilities, such as other linguistic and philosophical differences, or that i’m too naive/arrogant/oblivious/obtuse to get it yet, what “actual facts” are. On the point of facts disproving facts, the example is very much around the issues of cholesterol in diets causing blood cholesterol, and also “all calories are the same”. These made sense back in the day because they sounded logical, and probably also why they were not critically challenged, and what came out later was more context. The context for the cholesterol issue was that it was not a broad enough sample as far as countries go, and that some data had been excluded as “it did not fit in with the other data”. For reason, these newer facts that came to light essentially discredited the original theory. yeah, there’s always more. easy to get snagged on some compelling sounding spurious soundbite. still i’d like to know what facts are. like in the example given, “facts” are used again, but it seems an example showing how whatever it is that’s getting called facts, gets shown otherwise with more complexity and nuance revealed. idk, maybe i’m too nitpicky… got a hair-trigger for leading words like that. leads us to premature conclusion, to close our minds to thinking more about the essence, the thing, the flows, the relative respectivity, the interactions… i like more “catma” ;) than dogma. and some words seem to me to push more dogma and conformity to bigotry unconsciously unchallenged, more than it seemed to me my questions subtextually aluded some kind of point made. some words more directly, like “fact” (with or without further urging reassuring adjectives), and some somewhat more indirectly, like “conspiracy theories”. “The”, strikes especially leading. right up there next to “is”. “the” so often leads us to look no further. so easy to succumb to. so when i hear/read The context with this awareness of “The” in this regard, which generates unease in settling back into that ease to succumb, now that declarative statements tend to come with this little pseudo-socratic cascade of questioning in my mind, … always more. “the”?, what else. and with the cholesterol one… there are many more contexts, many more confounding distractions too, for density, may lead to a next “a-ha, now i know” that one could get stuck on for a while, and then may come along some further insights, of dose, or ratios, or context of what other combinations of inputs and whichever of the many bio-interactions, blood ph, mineral balances, blood cell size, blood sugar oscilations, and still we can fool ourselves with “a-ha! now i know.”… how long before we step down from dunning-kruger’s mount stupid, relinquish our certainty, by experience teaching us again and again, that the extent of our perception is not the extent of reality, and that we are to get out of this naive realism of thinking/believing our perceptions are reality, like we’d never heard, or never understood “the map is not the terrain”, and we get back to “shut up and measure”, as some of my fave physicists put it. maybe that’s of course too strong for a general rule, but when getting lost in the wild conjectures, it’s perhaps time to go back to hard research. :) and probably also why they were not critically challenged i’d not like to make such a presumption. infact (! lol), i find myself presuming the contrary. that they were challenged. just that “might is right” gets applied, and the critique gets drowned out in the trumpetry and fanfare of the sensational, heavily promoted as such things get, with the wealth-extraction-maximisation keep-our-jobs(spare-us-destitution) motivations. The tragedy though is that once something has taken root over so many decades, many are unwilling to change their minds, and still recall the original theories that have persisted so long. So “opposing facts” are often from a greater contextual view or awareness of how the original 'facts or theories" came about. lol. glad that phrase is in quotes. how delightfully orwellian. lol. what was that other dystopia… that hammered on about “good facts”… i forget. n_n very amusing novel litterary play thing. “opposing facts”. This is why we saw such an upheaval in the scientific community about a year or two back, realising that peer reviews were often not honest actual “peer” reviews, and many studies got discarded and re-examined. only that recent? some of us have been up at arms about that for at least a couple decades prior too. We’ve got a lot wiser and more critical now about theories, but this study was interesting as it was, as a result of that, looking into why conspiracy theories get believed so easily when they in the first place don’t have real evidence. Real conspiracy theories sound plausible, but are connected to dots that have no real basis in being connected. You cannot connect dots as facts, if they are just unbproven theories or allegations. We’ve who? got a lot wiser … o rly… well i hope so. wisdom, above all other aptitudes. and more critical :3 now :3 about theories, (’ ) _ (’ ) but this study was interesting as it was, as a result of that, looking into why conspiracy theories get believed so easily when they in the first place don’t have real evidence. and not one bit of that caused you to suspect it might be an attempt to mislead perception ? Real conspiracy theories sound plausible, so, we’re distinguishing real conspiracy theories from not-real conspiracy theories now too? so, real conspiracy theories, would they be someone’s genuine theory of some conspiring having taken place? and not-real conspiracy theories, would they be someone’s strawman version that’s intended to be disbelieved to discredit scrutiny? am i at least someways near with that? but are connected to dots that have no real basis in being connected. You cannot connect dots as facts, if they are just unbproven theories or allegations. yeah, and so, can ever? it comes back to me to not knowing what a fact is… idk if that’s from discombobulation from too many times seen it used incorrectly/presumptively/prematurely. and i like that. it seems preferable, even if an error in itself, to the error of pre-deciding reality and declaring “facts”. keeps a questioning mind. … some do warn against a mind too open… i wonder what that is too… seeing more the folly of glomping onto ideas in over-eagerness (like i suspect may be the target of the original piece), than entertaining ideas more at arm’s length. … i forget, was it voltaire who said something like… “it is the mark of an educated mind, to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting, nor rejecting it”. and it recurses, inclusively of introspection. Digit Powered by diaspora* Project discussions and support What’s new? Code 0.7.17.0 Pod statistics Switch to touch-optimized mode Terms