Heuristics and the Truth Movement

[aggle-rithm]

I've been thinking about the truthers that post here and why they are often so infuriating in their stubbornness to stick with wildly implausible ad hoc theories about 9/11. It made me think about how we judge whether or not a claim is reasonable, and that led me to heuristics.

Heuristics, of course, is the ability to take short-cuts in our thinking. If someone runs into a room and yells, "Squirrels have taken over the city!", most people would immediately start to laugh, rather than cringe in terror. No one needs to think, "Now wait a minute: Squirrels are small, few in number, poorly organized, and lack ambition. That's a ludicrous claim!" Instead, thanks to heuristics, they immediately recognize the claim as the joke that it is.

I have become convinced that, among other problems the troofers seem to be suffering from, they seem to lack a working set of heuristics. Whereas most people recognize that the plausible is a very small subset of the possible, members of the TM apparently don't have this capability. If it's possible, then it is by definition plausible, and in fact is often probable.

This is a bit of an oversimplification, though. There is another factor at work, and it affects everyone from skeptics to creduloids. That is the person's overarching belief system. Here I am talking about a person's heuristics that are dedicated to coloring his view of the world. "All Republicans are crooks", or "all Democrats are pandering weasels", or "all Native Americans are drunkards" form part of this set of beliefs. It tells us the way things should be, and it is held to even if it clashes with reality.

It appears, then, that the problem is the balance between the "plausibility" heuristics and the "world-view" heuristics. The stronger the latter set of heuristics, the less reliable the former set. Even the most reasonable among us are occasionally guilty of adopting a tenuous position simply because it is consistent with our own world-view. However, conspiracy theorists take this to a whole new level.

Does the idea that 19 hijackers can execute a major terrorist attack conflict with your world view? Then it's not only implausible, it's impossible! Does the hypothetical use of thermite support your idea that the gubmint didit? Then a previously unknown device for the deployment of thermite was not just plausible, but highly probable!

It seems that no idea is too kooky for troofers to embrace wholeheartedly, as long as it keeps the possibility of an "inside job" alive just a tiny bit.

This also explains the troofer's oft repeated accusation of the gullibility of those who disagree with them. If plausibility is a slave to ideals, then why WOULDN'T others believe as they do, that a skyscraper cannot collapse from fire? After all, it supports a TRUE BELIEF SYSTEM!

So, what is the reason for this lopsided belief system? Are the "plausibility" heuristics too weak, or the "world-view" heuristics too strong? Does it have to do with education? Is it something in the water? Can we do anything about it? SHOULD we do anything about it?

Comments, questions are welcome...

[Cuddles]

Heuristics, of course, is the ability to take short-cuts in our thinking. If someone runs into a room and yells, "Squirrels have taken over the city!", most people would immediately start to laugh, rather than cringe in terror. No one needs to think, "Now wait a minute: Squirrels are small, few in number, poorly organized, and lack ambition. That's a ludicrous claim!" Instead, thanks to heuristics, they immediately recognize the claim as the joke that it is.

You'll be laughing on the other side of your face when my plans finally come to fruition. Soon my pretties, soon...

So, what is the reason for this lopsided belief system? Are the "plausibility" heuristics too weak, or the "world-view" heuristics too strong? Does it have to do with education? Is it something in the water? Can we do anything about it? SHOULD we do anything about it?

Comments, questions are welcome...

Seriously though, this is a far more general problem than just conspiracy nuts, it applies to woo of all kinds, from from the wackiest paranormal nonsense to common things like religion. Culture, education and upbringing certainly play a large part in it, but there are plenty of people who reject fundamentalist upbringings and become hardcore skeptics, and plenty who are educated to the highest levels but still go off the deep end. When it comes down to it, people spend their entire lives trying to work out the psychology of why people do things and, although we know more than we used to, so far we really just don't know.

As for can we and should we do anything about it, these questions are raised quite often and I'd say yes and yes. There are some people who will never change their minds, no matter how much evidence is presented, but at the same time there are many who will. Even if they don't change their minds immediately, they may at least begin to question things, or even just become more tolerant of others. I think the main reason it often seems frustrating is that the people who make the most noise tend to be the ones who know the least, but are least likely to admit this. For every rabid truther or homeopath who refuses to listen, there are plenty of other people who are genuinely looking for information.

To paraphrase the saying, the horse may refuse to drink when you take it to the water, but there are plenty of other horses around who will be grateful for you putting the water out there.

[twinstead]

I have a question; would anybody care for a mint? I have plenty.

[Confuseling]

Very well written. Squirrels lacking ambition had me laughing out loud - it isn't true, the little feckers, stealing all my walnuts, but the fondness of the dream gave me a little lift anyway. [wistful tear] [points well oiled shotgun out of window]

I have had occasion to think about this a lot myself, because I have a fairly good friend who is an avid truther (in my social life I do have quite a tolerance for crazy beliefs - the search for ammunition led me here in the first place, and the sharp relief it provided led me to stay). The thing I find about him and his friends is, consonant with what you are saying, they are intelligent, thoughtful, sometimes even quite good at digging around an argument (they aren't the sort you'll likely have encountered on the web - I think we all realise that they're just a painfully vocal minority). Their brains appear to all intents and purposes to work, to put it simply - the hardware's right, so there's something kaput with the software. It's a psychological thing, rather than congenital inability to follow reasoned discourse.

And yes, I would think that does come down to ideology the vast majority of the time (let's never let the fun we have distract us from the realisation that some of them are genuinely ill). I have a pet theory that it has a lot to do with the resolution of cognitive dissonance brought about by mistrust of authority. I think most of these people are good people, and believe the general population around them to be good. But they see what they perceive as an evil, corrupt world, a kakistocracy if you will. I think they can't make the bridge between decent people living in democratic nations, the envy of the world, and the iniquities of globalisation; the ravages of the war we wage.

It has a lot to do with what people often say about the comforting image of control. It's hard to imagine the world as a semblance of order barely afloat on a sea of chaos - easier to hope there's someone pulling the levers, the CIA as an atheist creator-myth.

But I think it runs deeper. I think they're stuck on some of the subtleties of political economy and sociology - the tendency for power to corrupt and for the corrupt to seek power, for people to voluntarily subject themselves to tyranny in the guise of strength of leadership, for institutional inadequacy in the face of a brutal world.

We live in a democracy, so there should be plenty and kindness, but the legions of darkness run amok. The only explanation is that democracy has been subverted - otherwise democracy doesn't work, and what have I left to believe in?

Trutherism gives them a future - a Shangri-La, that a 'naive realist' world view can't hope to match. So this is what I propose - educate them. Not on physics, or engineering - because as we've amply demonstrated, it's not their understanding of physics or engineering that's broken. It's just a big pile of glue now, isn't it, with whatever we were trying to fix long forgotten. Educate them in sociology, political philosophy, economics, history. Give them perspective and hope founded in reality, and the illusory dream will wilt.

Apologies for the windbag length post - these thoughts have been on my mind for a while. Thankyou for creating the right thread for me to express them in. :)

[beachnut]

Does the idea that 19 hijackers can execute a major terrorist attack conflict with your world view? Then it's not only implausible, it's impossible! Does the hypothetical use of thermite support your idea that the gubmint didit? Then a previously unknown device for the deployment of thermite was not just plausible, but highly probable!

Comments, questions are welcome...
They glom to thermite, but do not know what it does; the cut throat, take plane, hit building action, is too simple to have happen, but getting thermite to destroy a building and lies, showing clean up cuts to confirm the lie, go down like a spoon full of sugar.

They want to believe it, so they do; 9/11 truth. Who needs evidence when you are too challenged to use it anyway.

[Unsecured Coins]

I have a question; would anybody care for a mint? I have plenty.

hook a brother up

[aggle-rithm]

I have had occasion to think about this a lot myself, because I have a fairly good friend who is an avid truther (in my social life I do have quite a tolerance for crazy beliefs - the search for ammunition led me here in the first place, and the sharp relief it provided led me to stay). The thing I find about him and his friends is, consonant with what you are saying, they are intelligent, thoughtful, sometimes even quite good at digging around an argument (they aren't the sort you'll likely have encountered on the web - I think we all realise that they're just a painfully vocal minority). Their brains appear to all intents and purposes to work, to put it simply - the hardware's right, so there's something kaput with the software. It's a psychological thing, rather than congenital inability to follow reasoned discourse.


Absolutely -- they are quite good at dragging an argument down into semantics, knowing that "reality" is really only a consensus interpretation of the world. If you look closely enough at the details, you can dispute just about anything. In the process, you miss the big picture.


It has a lot to do with what people often say about the comforting image of control. It's hard to imagine the world as a semblance of order barely afloat on a sea of chaos - easier to hope there's someone pulling the levers, the CIA as an atheist creator-myth.


A favorite troofer refrain is "Why would I believe this if it weren't true? Who would WANT to believe this?" However, it's a lot more comforting to think the CIA is in firm control than that we are at the mercy of a few crazy extremists.


Apologies for the windbag length post - these thoughts have been on my mind for a while. Thankyou for creating the right thread for me to express them in. :)


Your windbag-length posts are welcome any time. ;)

[Confuseling]

Absolutely -- they are quite good at dragging an argument down into semantics, knowing that "reality" is really only a consensus interpretation of the world. If you look closely enough at the details, you can dispute just about anything. In the process, you miss the big picture.


It does, in a bizarre way, perhaps sharpen our understanding though - in the same way as philosophical scepticism, while superficially appearing pointless, plays an important role as check and balance, and forces us into polishing concepts into a higher degree of precision. Many questions are only answered while the memories and evidence are still fresh because of the insistence of internet sleuths whose purposes are ostensibly deranged. Didn't Newton spend most of his time searching for hidden codes in the bible, only really establishing mechanics in his spare time, almost as a frippery? Plus ce change.

A favorite troofer refrain is "Why would I believe this if it weren't true? Who would WANT to believe this?" However, it's a lot more comforting to think the CIA is in firm control than that we are at the mercy of a few crazy extremists.


It's true, but I suspect it's a hollow comfort - kinda like a drug. You start off feeling like one of the enlightened few, then grow more and more disillusioned by people too ideologically blinded to understand how obvious it all is. They definitely have the character of religious zealots at first, unable to comprehend why the youtube scripture that is so profoundly meaningful to them, so incontrovertibly the word and the way, leaves you unmoved.

Kind of saddening watching them make themselves miserable for such a bizarre lost cause. Like a sociological version of personality disorder. I think many of them are at the stage now where it's almost impossible to let go - they're throwing good time after bad as it were, unable to accept that they've pored over video clips of buildings falling over for years of their lives for absolutely no reason. We can only hope it's character building.


Your windbag-length posts are welcome any time. ;)


Careful what you wish for :D

The other factor that I think has to be considered in woo forensic psychology is the distinction between type 1 and type 2 errors. Brains are to a huge extent pattern recognition systems.

Type 1 errors are false positives. If you look at grass and see a tiger, you're making a type 1 error. You get spooked, and run away from the grass. People laugh at you.

Type 2 errors are false negatives. If you look at a tiger and see grass, you're making a type 2 error. Blissfully unaware, you twiddle your last thumb. Your genes play in the pool no more.

Clearly, we should expect the brain to be hard-wired to err on the side of type 1 errors. We should in fact be thankful for it, not only does it keep us alive, but it probably protects us against all kinds of corruption and malfeasance, specifically because we can rely on some nut sitting in his basement trying to prove that Kennedy was shot by rogue Cornish nationalists, and finding out something useful by accident.

Support your local truther!!
:cheerleader2:cheerleader2:cheerleader2