Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mglj42 t1_ivyn9f6 wrote

Reply to comment by lpuckeri in The Warped Epistemology of Conspiracy Theories by CartesianClosedCat

Thanks for taking the time to reply - it’s a topic that interests me too. However I’ve come to slightly different conclusions. First I think that conspiracy theories can be accounted for by the psychological function they perform rather than the fact people are susceptible to cognitive biases. In this I mean they make you feel better or perhaps resolve a conflict (which also feels good). Some examples:

  1. Covid origin conspiracies or anti-Semitic conspiracies give the holder special knowledge or prestige but can also give a sense of order which may be reassuring (over randomness).
  2. Jan 6th conspiracies among Republicans allow the holder to avoid unpleasant facts about Trump or some of his supporters. These would be difficult to reconcile with their worldview but conspiracy theories provide a way out. Claims about voting help them too.

This describes what people get out of believing in conspiracy theories but it doesn’t say how belief in conspiracy theories is maintained when there is so little (no) evidence for them. In this I think it’s possible that (cognitive) biases do not cause people to believe conspiracy theories but are instead utilised (not necessarily deliberately) to maintain the conspiracy belief. Here I’d generalise this to other deeply held beliefs, which is where individuals like Oz come in (although many tip over into outright conspiracism too).

In short people try to maintain a core set of beliefs about the world and desire consistency from events, because maintaining core beliefs feels good and having a world of facts that do not contradict them feels good too. Cognitive biases work to achieve this. However knowledge of cognitive biases and arguments can also be used to attack (all the) counter evidence/arguments. In this way otherwise thoughtful, intelligent people can cling to conspiracy theories. Educating them on critical thinking is therefore not always effective because the critical thinking strategies can be employed with a desired goal (to maintain those core beliefs). It can therefore be hard in practice for critical thinking to overcome biases because we can be biased in our critical thinking too.

2

iiioiia t1_iw00koe wrote

>1. Jan 6th conspiracies among Republicans allow the holder to avoid unpleasant facts about Trump or some of his supporters. These would be difficult to reconcile with their worldview but conspiracy theories provide a way out. Claims about voting help them too.

This is true of the other side as well, but to differing degrees and in differing ways, and the interest levels in the truth seem very similar.

Not to worry though, pre-planted memes (subconscious heuristics that control reality perception) to the rescue: "both sides", "false equivalency", etc.

Humans are a very interesting species - so much potential, but trapped in a self-reinforcing cycle of wilfull delusion and silliness.

3

lpuckeri t1_iw01gu2 wrote

I agree,

As Jeremy Bentham says: "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to de"

But i think cognitive biases perform those psychological functions you mentioned. They help people feel vindicated or superior, or good or belonging to a tribe, and they help us avoid the pain of things like cognitive dissonance, even if short sighted. That is exactly why we have biases, the same reason you mentioned

I think we are actually saying almost the exact same thing.

​

> In this way otherwise thoughtful, intelligent people can cling to conspiracy theories. Educating them on critical thinking is therefore not always effective because the critical thinking strategies can be employed with a desired goal (to maintain those core beliefs).

I think i mean the same thing by biases and you do by core beliefs. I refer to them as biases because just that word implies an irrational stickiness to the belief. But really i think we are saying close to the same thing.

I think that generally if people are more knowledgeable, have a sound epistemology, and are strong critical thinking they will generally need an even higher level of bias(or unwillingness to let go of core beliefs) to maintain extremely irrational beliefs like conspiracy theories.

I also think a core aspect of critical thinking is not letting your biases inform your beliefs. Unlike intelligence, which is basically horsepower. You can have lots lot of horsepower, but its more about getting the power down in the right direction. People who are smart but lack critical think are just spinning tires.

The definition from google: "The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence."

I kinda of agree with this definition

While ide say Oz is intelligent, i wouldn't say he has great critical thinking skills, and i wouldn't say his biases inform his critical thinking. An irrational intelligent person is definitely more difficult to debate and can be stubborn but i wouldn't call that person a critical thinker, as I think part of critical thinking requires deep introspection of biases, and consistent application of sound epistemology.

The conspiracy equation:

h = intelligence

c = critical thinking skills

b = bias

y = rationality

Y = B - HC^(2)

​

lol

good chat

2

mglj42 t1_iwtlaq1 wrote

Yes I think your use of bias to mean what I’ve called core beliefs is confusing given cognitive biases. But there is another equation. I think the strength of a belief (the degree of certainty someone claims for the truth or falsity of it) has 2 components. First the evidence they claim and second the importance to them that the belief is true or false. People believe true things and believe false things anywhere on these scales. When I use core beliefs I mean those beliefs that are far along the importance scale although they could be beliefs about almost anything. So someone can believe falsely that Rio de Janeiro is the capital of Brazil or falsely that Trump won the 2022 election but attach very different importance to these two beliefs. The problem is what happens when evidence and importance clash, which is something I think a conspiracy theory can resolve. Although it seems unlikely I would not even dismiss the possibility that someone would believe in a conspiracy to hide Rio as the true capital of Brazil!

Those who cite critical thinking as the solution to the problem of false beliefs are I think missing this other dimension. Critical thinking can allow you to address the evidence someone claims but it does not address the importance they attach to the belief. Even when someone has no grounds to believe something they can still believe it. I don’t know the answer here though, I’m merely questioning whether critical thinking is enough on it’s own. I have a favoured analogy here. The advocates of critical thinking (only) sometimes seem to me like the advocates of abstinence only as a way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. I’m not suggesting that abstinence only doesn’t work, just that I don’t think it’s something people do all that well!.

1