Coming out of the closet

[xpert11]

Concerning conspiracy theories, my natural tendency is toward deeply held scepticism. However, I am happy to debate current events and other topics with people who don't share my views. 
Niche historical topics, backed up by research and documentation, aren't fringe but aren't dinner-time conversations. Those topics are often dark in nature, and an understandable lack of public interest is at work. 

Some people outside the Deny Ignorance community wrap themselves in social media thought bubbles. These thought bubbles are usually politically driven and burst when election results do not go their way.

I have had great discussions, read articles and listened to podcasts on social media. However, the views expressed or people showing interest don't reflect broader society. Of course, as someone who is a Substack writer, I am biased.

[UltraBudgie]

Excellent idea for a conversation! 
 
Because of my compulsion to entertain and dissect lists, I was immediate confronted by how many different direction in which it could evolve...  I will reject my natural tendency to address your OP point by point... I think the central idea was sound and clear.

There are many reasons for exploring these ideas, and many of them aren't mine so it is difficult to do them justice; especially if your hoping to tease out any sincere deep dive into specificity.

I have found that there is no person I have ever spoken to or corresponded with, who wasn't a conspiracy theorist in some sense.  A "human life" is a string of conspiracy theories... we live to understand, our first human instinct is to 'learn' through observation.  The "curation" of our individual realities starts there, without exception.  "Conspiracy theory" is just observations... Fringe Ideas are 'usually' connected to conspiracy theory... in some natural way.

Few like to admit that they acknowledge this.  From the flatly manipulative "it's all craziness - you should fear and reject conspiracy discussions" to the ironic "conspiracy theories are conspiratorial"  we are 'dissuaded' socially from approaching the ideas... and I find that should be a very telling component of socially distancing oneself from them. 

Why the knee-jerk rejection to conspiracy theory? 
What exactly do they 'damage?' 
Why "hide" your interest? 
Why distance yourself from it? 
What judgment are you avoiding? 
From what is it that you are protecting yourself?

The 'closet' in this case is the idea that despite a genuine interest, we must frustrate our own inquisitiveness... because "only a fool would believe [insert theory]?"  Yet we watch soap operas, and fantasy films, read comic books and easily participate in WWE-style political theater, or worship the imagery of talented celebrities... even knowing that almost all of it is a bouquet of lies and bluster.

Personally, I was never "in the conspiracy theorist closet"... I very often was the one to add "Hey, how about this... [insert observation?]" to be met with "Oh! You're one of those?" inflected to deliver the verbal eye-roll.  I got used to it.  The older I got, the less the social knee jerk response bothered me... now I can proudly say that "Yes! I am a conspiracy theorist, aren't we lucky?"

I would like to address some of your examples... but it would really be beside the point I'm trying to share.

A nuanced and considered reply as always; thank you.

I like the idea that "everyone is a conspiracy theorist, in some sense", and the idea that we all sort of build our own world-views as we mature.  That's true.  For example, when I was young I could breath underwater through my ears, until I couldn't, at which point I hadn't.  I think.  Did I rebuild my world into one where that wasn't possible, so it hadn't been?  I don't know, of course -- there's no way to "step outside" the construct and measure.  I guess the best that we can hope for with the way we see the world is that it is some balance between 1) being workable, in which we have agency, 2) being predictable, in which we have a sense of self, and 3) being exciting and fun, in which we do not stagnate or wither.  Those are in conflict sometimes!  And when not fulfilled, people look "in the cracks" of their realities, searching for new meaning.  I guess that's "conspiracy theorizing", in the broad sense we're using it here.

The "knee-jerk" reaction people have: no one likes an unexpected and undesired challenge, where the game of social interaction suddenly changes and the rules they though were in play are suddenly maybe-not-valid.  I think American culture paints so many images of "crazy outsiders" at people that they become afraid.  Ideologically xenophobic.  Certainly, with politics, people have been shock-collar trained to avoid avoid avoid cross-boundary interaction.  To formalize it with nerfed non-reaction and hide from the conflict they see presented as "normal" online or in our news media.  The same thing applies if someone out of the blue starts talking about aliens, illegal or the other kind.

And I think we all have a social persona.  The way we want people to see us.  No one likes the idea of being considered the crazy, the nail that sticks up gets hammered.  You don't get invited to any of the really fun parties, perhaps.  And of course there's the "professional image" to think about.  Do any of the posters here ever think about running for even mid-level political office, hmm?  Well, maybe that doesn't matter so much if you have the right connections -- Beto O'Rourke was a member of the Cult of The Dead Cow, you know.

Some of the list entries drew you in a little, huh?  Haha mission accomplished.  Start a thread or two!  That'd be great.

Yes, you've made very good points -- don't bulldoze people's worldviews casually, even unintentionally, unless there's a very good reason and they've indicated consent.  In a way, all worldviews are religions, and that faith may be the only thing between them and the void.  So when I'm talking with someone and they mention, for example, dinosaurs, my measured reaction isn't to set them straight, but to better understand their mythology, why they need that belief system, what purpose it serves them.  Especially with older folk -- if you get to your 60s or 70s believing such things, well, might as well ride out the journey; who am I to say different.  I think that's a part of respecting people as people.

[FlyingClayDisk]

Personally, I like to talk about the time dilation theory (twin paradox) and how it renders long distance space travel at high rates of speed irrelevant for any being with mass.

Usually shuts down most "E.T." discussions in a matter of a minute or so.

I think I like talking to my dogs better than most people anyway.  LOL!

[UltraBudgie]

Personally, I like to talk about the time dilation theory (twin paradox) and how it renders long distance space travel at high rates of speed irrelevant for any being with mass.

Usually shuts down most "E.T." discussions in a matter of a minute or so.

I think I like talking to my dogs better than most people anyway.  LOL!

Oh that's a great one -- the intelligence of pets.  Not really a conspiracy theory (except for what the cats are up to), but a fringe belief that is actually probably a majority opinion among pet owners.


Edit to add: Life became so much more fun when I stopped say "I believe" and started saying "I can believe".

[FlyingClayDisk]

Oh that's a great one -- the intelligence of pets.  Not really a conspiracy theory (except for what the cats are up to), but a fringe belief that is actually probably a majority opinion among pet owners.


Edit to add: Life became so much more fun when I stopped say "I believe" and started saying "I can believe".

We've got an ACD who I think really can bend the laws of physics when it comes to space-time and high velocity travel!  I'm pretty sure I've witnessed him pass into a parallel dimension when chasing a rabbit.  In fact, one time he actually ran right over a jackrabbit before he (or the rabbit) realized what had happened.  I could have sworn I heard Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein debating the merits of FTL travel behind me.  I turned around and they both seemingly vanished.

[putnam6]

I'm a hardcore skeptic, but I'm willing to discuss almost anything.  Gobekli Tepi, the Tartaran Mud Flood, Earth/pole flipping -- however, I'm likely to drag ancient sources into things as well as mathematics (I'm no mathematician but I can stumble along in geometry and in physics) and I'm picky about sources.

I do get a little testy on some of the ancient Egyptian topics (like the "light bulb" or the "helicopter" "Great Pyramid Ram Jet") but I'm willing to at least read the introductory material.  (I can read SOME hieroglyphs, which means I'm really willing to point at them and say "no, this is what this thing says."


...except when they want me to watch a video.  Give me text and something solid to back it up with.

I won't be harsh or nasty -- I always try to be polite and respectful, even when disagreeing.

I appreciate the skepticism the vast majority of the time it's warranted, as has been mentioned Im open to theories but Ive also read enough where the evidence needs to be above the basic level.

[UltraBudgie]

What makes it fun is that it is essentially impossible to "prove" models. Each significant layer of correlation brings in corresponding predicates, which may then be questioned anew. This is often called "shifting the goalposts", but it is a fundamental attribute of rational epistemology: no finite belief-system or scientific model can be complete and consistent. It is however, possible to "disprove" models by showing contradiction, however (and this can be logically proven) the model may then always be revised to account for seeming contradiction.

And the wheels just keep going 'round and 'round...

Eventually, it comes down to practical utility. So what about any wild conspiracy theories: how do they affect "real life"? How are they useful? What do they show us, and are they persistently worthwhile? And those are "open-ended" questions.

This is why I feel it is better to "entertain" beliefs and conspiratorial models, rather than "holding" them.

[Chiefsmom]

There really isn't a subject I won't discuss, if there is a willing participant.   There is a lot I don't know, so I will have to do a lot of listening, then maybe some research if the subject interests me.

I don't back away from conversations.  I can tell in about the first 2 minutes if I bring up a subject and someone is not interested (IRL).  So I just change the subject.

You don't learn, if you don't listen.

[putnam6]

 
Eventually, it comes down to practical utility. So what about any wild conspiracy theories: how do they affect "real life"? How are they useful? What do they show us, and are they persistently worthwhile? And those are "open-ended" questions.

This is why I feel it is better to "entertain" beliefs and conspiratorial models, rather than "holding" them.

While it is better for the masses to just "entertain" beliefs and conspiratorial models, rather than holding them most times we move our enlightenment forward based on the actions of those who do hold specific beliefs and conspiratorial models.

Galileo wasn't jailed because he entertained the thought that the sun was the center of our solar system, he was jailed because he held to his assertion that the sun, not the Earth was the center of our solar system.

After all 200,000 years ago some monkeys held the belief they didn't have to just live eat and sleep in trees and forests he held the belief he was tired of pissing off a tree branch and living off leaves and seeds and nuts. 

So they climbed down from the trees, and it didn't matter that a few hours later they all had been killed by larger predatory animals. That action set in motion where eventually 500 years later another group of monkeys decided to screw this get out of these trees let's walk around on the plains where again they were promptly devoured. This process likely continued for 10,000 years till one monkey or a small group of monkeys escaped being killed and lived long enough to walk upright eat a more diverse and nutrient diet, to eventually use tools. Soon they became more experienced and instead of just adapting they became predatory and killed or absorbed other monkey groups. 

We haven't evolved we just took those basic premises and upscaled them, today's rockets, missiles and artillery were our monkey ancestors' rocks and clubs

At some point, a monkey has to step out and hold a belief, fight for a belief, and perhaps die for a belief, or we would still be monkeys scratching our asses sitting in the trees

[Maxmars]

About skepticism....

It is a gift.

Conspiracy theorists face an infinite map, charting a path through an unknown. Without skepticism, they are very nearly blind.

Skepticism guards, or provides, a "shore line"... without which, navigation becomes nigh impossible.

(ooh, I must be in a 'mood.'  )