Why do people believe conspiracy theories?

[Flavus Aquila]

I think you should reconsider the bold part and instead say you have problems with conspiracy theorists that do what you describe afterwards. If that happens to be everyone that find some conspiracies more likely than not, it still applies... yet it doesn't commit the error of categorically linking finding a conspiracy to be a part of the most likely explanation for a pattern of behavior, to being entirely illogical and unreasonable per definition.

As people have pointed out earlier in the thread, doing this is unreasonable categorical dismissal and characterization. You don't have and will never have the basis to claim what you do. That goes for @Flavus Aquila too.

I would argue it is certainly not categorically unreasonable to find a conspiracy highly likely. For example, take for example the now-defeated light bulb industry conspiracy where there were a relatively small amount of actors manufacturing light bulbs for certain markets (Europe, US), and instead of the quality of their light bulbs increasing in terms of longevity, they in fact, decreased.

Now, if they have the technology to attempt to one-up each other in longevity quality, and we know this, and that the ones who had the best technology would gain an edge over their competitors, then there are two main options.

1: They were not communicating to make sure of sharing an intent to not only keep things the way they are, but actually increase the planned obsolescence factor of their goods, merely hoping none of their competitors will escalate the competition or simply not reduce the longevity of the products they sell.

2: There is contact among these few industry titans and they agree on how to get the most out of the market for themselves as a collective.


Unless one does not understand humans at all, number 2 is of course clearly more likely. This is a reasonable way to deduce that a conspiracy is the most likely explanation without having hard evidence for the conspiracy existing, because all other conceivable explanations are considerably less likely.

Bad example. Light bulbs always have an estimated life expectancy stated in hours on the package. Ultra long-life bulbs have always been available. To create a conspiracy theory on the subject is gratuitous, unnecessary, and thus, slightly crazy.

 

[latte]

Bad example. Light bulbs always have an estimated life expectancy stated in hours on the package. Ultra long-life bulbs have always been available. To create a conspiracy theory on the subject is gratuitous, unnecessary, and thus, slightly crazy.

Reconsider whether the proposed conspiracy was in regards to concealing the life expectancy or whether it was about the reaching of a understanding between several industry titans to actively pursue planned obsolescence within that market.


"Ultra life-long" light bulbs would have been marketed and sold heavily to the detriment of low longevity life bulbs if there was proper competition. It doesn't take much economic understanding to come to that conclusion.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Reconsider whether the proposed conspiracy was in regards to concealing the life expectancy or whether it was about the reaching of a understanding between several industry titans to actively pursue planned obsolescence within that market.

Spoiler

Hint: The former doesn't even qualify as straw-man and the latter was what was actually said.

Ultra life-long life bulbs would have been marketed and sold heavily to the detriment of low longevity life bulbs if there was proper competition. It doesn't take much economic understanding to come to that conclusion.

The economic sense of planned obsolescence in something like a light bulb is so obvious at every level from manufacture, through to retail, that it is hardly a hidden concept. Whether there was any anti-competitive collusion in the industry is moot, because cheap ultra-long life bulbs have always been available. Light bulbs are simply an example of the success of marketing and distribution in maintaining commercial volume, through the mass distribution of inferior product.

The fact that the durability of light bulbs was never hidden, together with the fact that a range of product was always available nullifies the proposition that deliberate obsolescence was ever hidden from the public.

 

[Kanamori]

Just because YOU don't know whats going on, doesn't mean that no one does

How could anyone say that they know all of what is going on? Beyond living memory, history is even a matter of putting pieces together and *gasp* theory.

 

[latte]

The economic sense of planned obsolescence in something like a light bulb is so obvious at every level from manufacture, through to retail, that it is hardly a hidden concept. Whether there was any anti-competitive collusion in the industry is moot, because cheap ultra-long life bulbs have always been available. Light bulbs are simply an example of the success of marketing and distribution in maintaining commercial volume, through the mass distribution of inferior product.

The fact that the durability of light bulbs was never hidden, together with the fact that a range of product was always available nullifies the proposition that deliberate obsolescence was ever hidden from the public.

What would have been hidden from the public is the conscious coordination of not ruining it by the major actors. Because if just 1 actor with enough capital would have heavily marketed longer life light bulbs, the public consciousness would have been significantly more immunized against planned obsolescence, and the actor that performed the first strike would have a very good opportunity to solidify itself as the primary "long life light bulb" brand, with a good opportunity to bash on other brands as having been intentionally immoral and wasteful, tarnishing their reputations.

What you state about the whole range being available is a half-truth at best. Where I live, and I presume most other places in the west, people largely didn't even know they existed or thought about it at all just 15 years ago. They weren't available in the places where people would usually buy their light bulbs, which was convenience stores. Them being available elsewhere doesn't matter much because people won't go after what they don't know about or think about.

Only in recent decades have they become popularized, through newer actors with enough capital to somewhat market them and the free marketing they received through a stronger ecology movement. And now they are in every convenience store and pretty much everybody knows about them and are conscious about their choice, including from the previously lukewarm major actors.

One must also ask oneself what they had to lose from doing it. Because it was pretty much nothing. If the truth came out, the consequences would be zero. But merely talking with each other to ensure everyone was on the same page safeguarded how artificially bloated the market was as a part of the economy.

It's just terribly unlikely that they wouldn't follow their best interest at pretty much no risk to themselves for doing so.

The overall argumentational line you present seem to be predicated on the idea that an explanation not involving a conspiracy is inherently the more likely one so long as an explanation that does not involve a conspiracy can be thought up. This is a false presumption and is not proper use of occam's razor. One could easily argue that several individuals following the same plan which is dependent on the behavior of their competitors, without knowing whether any of their competitors would ruin it and then for reasons we don't know not develop a truce to safeguard and exploit the status quo is more complicated because the people involved not doing what is clearly in their interests poses questions that when answered would yield a more complex reality than the one involving a conspiracy.

Firstly, we know they had no moral qualms about planned obsolescence. It follows then that they would have no moral qualms about having a mutual understanding that this profit fest was to not end, at pretty much no risk to themselves.

There is a difference between hard science and analysis of concrete happenings in reality. In the latter, one necessarily has to operate based on both probabilities and deductions due to the limited nature of information that can be derived. In the former, one can always get more information about what one wants to find out about through repeated experiments. In the former, being conservative (that is, cautious), means to await a large amount of corroborating information before concluding what is likely. In the latter, this information may not come, and one must simply figure out what are the likeliest scenarios based on the information one does have, through figuring out which scenarios are more unlikely until one is left with 1 or a few.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

What would have been hidden from the public is the conscious coordination of not ruining it by the major actors. Because if just 1 actor with enough capital would have heavily marketed longer life light bulbs, the public consciousness would have been significantly more immunized against planned obsolescence, and the actor that performed the first strike would have a very good opportunity to solidify itself as the primary "long life light bulb" brand, with a good opportunity to bash on other brands as having been intentionally immoral and wasteful, tarnishing their reputations.

What you state about the whole range being available is a half-truth at best. Where I live, and I presume most other places in the west, people largely didn't even know they existed or thought about it at all just 15 years ago. They weren't available in the places where people would usually buy their light bulbs, which was convenience stores. Them being available elsewhere doesn't matter much because people won't go after what they don't know about or think about.

Only in recent decades have they become popularized, through newer actors with enough capital to somewhat market them and the free marketing they received through a stronger ecology movement. And now they are in every convenience store and pretty much everybody knows about them and are conscious about their choice, including from the previously lukewarm major actors.

You should ask yourself what they had to lose from doing it. Because it was pretty much nothing. If the truth came out, the consequences would be zero. But merely talking with each other to ensure everyone was on the same page safeguarded how artificially bloated the market was as a part of the economy.

It's just terribly unlikely that they wouldn't follow their best interest at pretty much no risk to themselves for doing so.

Your arguments seem to be predicated on the idea that an explanation not involving a conspiracy is inherently the more likely one so long as an explanation that does not involve a conspiracy can be thought up. This is a false presumption and is not proper use of occam's razor. One could easily argue that several individuals following the same plan which is dependent on the behavior of their competitors, without knowing whether any of their competitors would ruin it and then for reasons we don't know not develop a truce to safeguard and exploit the status quo is more complicated because the people involved not doing what is clearly in their interests poses questions that when answered would yield a more complex reality than the one involving a conspiracy.

Firstly, we know they had no moral qualms about planned obsolescence. It follows then that they would have no moral qualms about having a mutual understanding that this profit fest was to not end, at pretty much no risk to themselves.

There is a difference between hard science and analysis of concrete happenings in reality. In the latter, one necessarily has to operate based on both probabilities and deductions due to the limited nature of information that can be derived. In the former, one can always get more information about what one wants to find out about through repeated experiments. In the former, being conservative (that is, cautious), means to await a large amount of corroborating information before concluding what is likely. In the latter, this information may not come, and one must simply figure out what are the likeliest scenarios based on the information one does have, through figuring out which scenarios are more unlikely until one is left with 1 or a few.

Isn't it more likely that short life bulbs were more appealing to both manufacturers and retailers?

You state that most people buy bulbs at convenience stores. If, for instance, you wish to buy cutlery and crockery - what would you find at a convenience store? Disposables - simply because they are cheap and make for repeat customers. If you wished to buy lasting cutlery and crockery, you would have to go to a department store, or a specialty store. This was always the same for long-life light bulbs - you had to go to a department store with a reasonable electrical section, or a lighting store.

I feel that you will never accept that there was any place in the commercial market for "disposable" light-bulbs because it does not mesh with your desire to prove that there was a commercial conspiracy. That seems the most simple explanation to me. (Hat tip to Ockham).

 

[latte]

By extending it to convenience store type retailers, one could easily say that the retailer that had long lasting light bulbs that were marketed by the manufacturer as far more cost-to-usage effective light bulbs would get more overall customers than competitors not carrying them. Only by the logic of convenience store chains as a collective could one assume short life light bulbs would be desirable as the only choice by them. In other areas, the convenience store chains compete to the detriment of their collective wellbeing. It is probably then a light bulb industry issue.

Disposable cutlery and crockery actually have both niche uses and have benefits stemming from their disposability (like not having to wash them, them being light weight for trips and easily thrown away, being compact in stacks), unlike light bulbs. They are also pretty much all the same in effective quality, and aren't bought with aesthetics in mind, unlike permanent cutlery & crookery. It is not comparable.

Not wanting to compete with specialist stores when it came to permanent crockery and cutlery came from typical convenience store size and seeing themselves as being unable to compete with the selection offered by specialist stores, because unlike with light bulb, things like aesthetics and a wide price range on products mattered. The "mega-marts" of today now generally do sell some kinds of long-use cutlery and crockery, but not the smaller more traditional size convience stores. These stores now have long life light bulbs, but tend to not have long term usage cutlery or crockery.

 

[muir]

Protests in Germany against the federal reserve banking system:

[video=youtube;lIjYjkJt2us]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjYjkJt2us[/video]

 

[latte]

It's concerning that they aren't good at explaining (perhaps understanding?) the exact nature of the systemic corruption embedded in the combination of the dollar hegemony and banking system, though maybe it appearing like this is an effect of the editing or perhaps they don't want to speak in a too complicated manner. The latter seems more likely than the former. It's at least good that they to some degree understand that the current system is exploitative at a mechanics level, and that they try to make people entertain it as a possibility.

Libertarians and some anarchistic movements seem to be the most intellectually equipped camps in regards to understanding thoroughly what is actually going on system-wise, though they probably rub a lot of people the wrong way in a manner these people do not.

 

[Matt3737]

Why? Because there are emotionally stunted individuals in the world who need to project their anxieties into a form of social paranoia as a defense mechanism.

It's concerning that they aren't good at explaining (perhaps understanding?) the exact nature of the systemic corruption embedded in the combination of the dollar hegemony and banking system, though maybe it appearing like this is an effect of the editing or perhaps they don't want to speak in a too complicated manner. The latter seems more likely than the former. It's at least good that they to some degree understand that the current system is exploitative at a mechanics level, and that they try to make people entertain it as a possibility.

Libertarians and some anarchistic movements seem to be the most intellectually equipped camps in regards to understanding thoroughly what is actually going on system-wise, though they probably rub a lot of people the wrong way in a manner these people do not.

Intellectually impotent would be more precise. They tend to only pose problems with no solutions.

I especially enjoy/despise the irony and hypocrisy of their usage of the tolerance paradox. How they enjoy waxing philosophical of their tolerance for diversity while simultaneously deriding any/all opposition to their interpretations.

Their understanding of social organization is like a myrmecologist (one engaged in the study of ants) who believes they have a good grasp of understanding ants, but believe ant colonies are aberrations manipulated by the conspiratorial malevolence of the ant queen.

 

[gd65h8as7]

Why? Because there are emotionally stunted individuals in the world who need to project their anxieties towards social paranoia as a defense mechanism.



Intellectually impotent would be more precise. They tend to only pose problems with no solutions.

Oh please....

Look. The overwhelming majority of "conspiracy theories", when placed under careful scrutiny, turn out to be horse shit. But there are a handful of them (9/11, JFK assassination) which, believe it or not, are actual conspiracies. But I think people who are knowledgeable of the conspiracies that are true shouldn't bother trying to 'enlighten' others about it; being that the truth is stranger than fiction, the person being shown the truth about a conspiracy most likely isn't going to believe it. I understand why there is widespread hate towards "conspiracy theorists" being that the people these subjects attract are often kooky. But there are a small number of conspiracies that are actually true, and you generalizing all people who are interested in conspiracies as "emotionally stunted individuals" makes you look ignorant (which I know you aren't).


[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] is absolutely correct when he says the term "conspiracy theorist" was invented by the CIA and put into circulation to discredit people who questioned the JFK Assassination.

"The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time."

 

[Matt3737]

Oh please....

Look. The overwhelming majority of "conspiracy theories", when placed under careful scrutiny, turn out to be horse shit. But there are a handful of them (9/11, JFK assassination) which, believe it or not, are actual conspiracies. But I think people who are knowledgeable of the conspiracies that are true shouldn't bother trying to 'enlighten' others about it; being that the truth is stranger than fiction, the person being shown the truth about a conspiracy most likely isn't going to believe it. I understand why there is widespread hate towards "conspiracy theorists" being that the people these subjects attract are often kooky. But there are a small number of conspiracies that are actually true, and you generalizing all people who are interested in conspiracies as "emotionally stunted individuals" makes you look ignorant (which I know you aren't).


[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] is absolutely correct when he says the term "conspiracy theorist" was invented by the CIA and put into circulation to discredit people who questioned the JFK Assassination.

"The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time."

I didn't generalize to all. I acknowledge that there are things that I am either undecided about or decidedly incorrect about. I didn't define what constitutes a 'conspiracy theory' or not, simply that they exist and my belief as to why. I am though, as you might have assumed, more conservative against most of what might be deemed a conspiracy theory although I still have the decency to acknowledge that I am potentially incorrect whereas the worst brand of conspiracy theorists show little to no respect for others' interpretations.

Edit: To be clear, just in case, for those 'horse shit' theories (as you say) that pop up my explanation follows....emotionally stunted individuals who project anxiety onto other people to serve as scapegoats.

 

[muir]

It's concerning that they aren't good at explaining (perhaps understanding?) the exact nature of the systemic corruption embedded in the combination of the dollar hegemony and banking system, though maybe it appearing like this is an effect of the editing or perhaps they don't want to speak in a too complicated manner. The latter seems more likely than the former. It's at least good that they to some degree understand that the current system is exploitative at a mechanics level, and that they try to make people entertain it as a possibility.

Libertarians and some anarchistic movements seem to be the most intellectually equipped camps in regards to understanding thoroughly what is actually going on system-wise, though they probably rub a lot of people the wrong way in a manner these people do not.

This short video gives a pretty simple break down of how it works; the naysayers would call the following 'conspiracy theory' but its just reality:

[video=youtube;iFDe5kUUyT0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0[/video]

 

[muir]

I didn't generalize to all. I acknowledge that there are things that I am either undecided about or decidedly incorrect about. I didn't define what constitutes a 'conspiracy theory' or not, simply that they exist and my belief as to why. I am though, as you might have assumed, more conservative against most of what might be deemed a conspiracy theory although I still have the decency to acknowledge that I am potentially incorrect whereas the worst brand of conspiracy theorists show little to no respect for others' interpretations.

Edit: To be clear, just in case, for those 'horse shit' theories (as you say) that pop up my explanation follows....emotionally stunted individuals who project anxiety onto other people to serve as scapegoats.

The sensible approach is to not have a little tantrum and to start lashing out with name calling when you are presented with information that challenges your currently held view

Just take a deep breath, calm your agitated ego and then look into their claims and see what information you can find

There will be trouble makers out there who are deliberately trying to muddy the waters for whatever reason

There will be government dissinfo agents online trying to muddy the waters

There will crackpot theories put out there by peoiple who haven't done their research that will muddy the waters

But there are also people out there who have done a VAST amount of reading and other forms of study into the background information behind the mainstream news stories; these people can be a great source of information but what you will find is that often what they tell you does not corroborate with the mainstream news; this is because the mainstream news is owned and run by big corporations who have an agenda

An example would be the Trans Pacific Partnership. The alternative media and what you would call 'conpsiracy theorists' have talked a lot about the TPP because they recognise that it is an important subject but the mainstream corporate news has barely spoken about it because they don't want the general public to be aware of the content of the TPP

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Oh please....

Look. The overwhelming majority of "conspiracy theories", when placed under careful scrutiny, turn out to be horse shit. But there are a handful of them (9/11, JFK assassination) which, believe it or not, are actual conspiracies. But I think people who are knowledgeable of the conspiracies that are true shouldn't bother trying to 'enlighten' others about it; being that the truth is stranger than fiction, the person being shown the truth about a conspiracy most likely isn't going to believe it. I understand why there is widespread hate towards "conspiracy theorists" being that the people these subjects attract are often kooky. But there are a small number of conspiracies that are actually true, and you generalizing all people who are interested in conspiracies as "emotionally stunted individuals" makes you look ignorant (which I know you aren't).


@muir is absolutely correct when he says the term "conspiracy theorist" was invented by the CIA and put into circulation to discredit people who questioned the JFK Assassination.

"The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time."

"Conspiracy theorist" is a descriptive term: a person who theorises the existence of a conspiracy.

What would you suggest as a descriptive term for individuals whose interest lies in finding conspiracies?

 

[muir]

"Conspiracy theorist" is a descriptive term: a person who theorises the existence of a conspiracy.

What would you suggest as a descriptive term for individuals whose interest lies in finding conspiracies?

Did the nazis always tell the truth to the public of germany or did they use propaganda?

If you think they lied then ask yourself: 'were the nazis the only government to ever lie or do many if not all governments sometimes lie to their public?'

If you answered that governments do in fact lie to their public sometimes then you must also appreciate that sometimes members of the public who follow events closely will sometimes spot the lies and then expose them to the wider public; arguably this is part of the mechanism of a healthy democracy where the people hold government to account

If a person knows the government is lying about something and can explain their position...is it really fair or accurate to call them a 'theorist'?

Surely a 'theorist' is someone who is not sure about what they are talking about.....they only have a 'theory'

But someone who knows what the government agenda is does not have a theory....they have insight

So if you are the powers that be whether you are a government spokesman or a corporate media sockpuppet...if you see someone exposing one of the lies of the government and you know that member of the public is telling the truth then clearly it is missleading to brand them a 'theorist' because to do so is an implied denial of what they are claiming which is going to be enough to create a plausible deniability effect in the mind of any of the public who are not yet suspicious of the governments lie

To answer your question above:

it is in everyones 'interest' to expose the conspiracies of the powerful when they adversly affect the public

 

[muir]

The neo-cons who were controlling the US government lied to take that country into an illegal war against Iraq (illegal because UN law states that a country can only declare war if it is attacked first)

Here is a lying montage showing their lies in the build upto the war where they are trying to frighten the american public by creating a bogeyman; they did this by falsely claiming that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction. This lie caused a war which has seen over a million people killed and the violence continues to this day

The 'conspiracy theorists' said the government was lying...and guess what...they were right. How did they know this? Because they pay attention

[video=youtube;nE2SdF1fN4s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE2SdF1fN4s[/video]

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Did the nazis always tell the truth to the public of germany or did they use propaganda?

If you think they lied then ask yourself: 'were the nazis the only government to ever lie or do many if not all governments sometimes lie to their public?'

If you answered that governments do in fact lie to their public sometimes then you must also appreciate that sometimes members of the public who follow events closely will sometimes spot the lies and then expose them to the wider public; arguably this is part of the mechanism of a healthy democracy where the people hold government to account

If a person knows the government is lying about something and can explain their position...is it really fair or accurate to call them a 'theorist'?

Surely a 'theorist' is someone who is not sure about what they are talking about.....they only have a 'theory'

But someone who knows what the government agenda is does not have a theory....they have insight

So if you are the powers that be whether you are a government spokesman or a corporate media sockpuppet...if you see someone exposing one of the lies of the government and you know that member of the public is telling the truth then clearly it is missleading to brand them a 'theorist' because to do so is an implied denial of what they are claiming which is going to be enough to create a plausible deniability effect in the mind of any of the public who are not yet suspicious of the governments lie

To answer your question above:

it is in everyones 'interest' to expose the conspiracies of the powerful when they adversly affect the public

Unproved hypotheses are called theories. And even theories need to be well substantiated.

"Conspiracy theory" is a generous term IMHO because most of the stuff going around is nothing more than assertion, which lacks any substantiation, let alone any proof.

 

[muir]

Unproved hypotheses are called theories. And even theories need to be well substantiated.

"Conspiracy theory" is a generous term IMHO because most of the stuff going around is nothing more than assertion, which lacks any substantiation, let alone any proof.

Here's the thing though...whilst people like you spend this time discussing your opinion on the matter the 'conspiracy theorists' are out there learning stuff

if you think a 'conspiracy theorist' is talking shit you shouldn't imo launch off on some rant about how all conspiracy theories are horse shit or that all conspiracy theorists are intellectually lacking and paranoid

What you should do imo is TEST their theory

probe it....ask them questions. Find out if they know what they are talking about or if they are talking shit.

This way you can find out if they know what they're talking about, what the foundations of their claim are or if there are any foundations, how intellectually sound they are and indeed ultimately you could even determine if they are in a paranoid state of mind or just aware of things that you aren't

However if you do this then for it to work you MUST give them a fair hearing.....you MUST look at the information they present to you otherwise you will never know if they have any grounds for their claims or not

If you don't come to the discussion with an open mind then you come with a closed mind...and that is not a fair hearing

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Here's the thing though...whilst people like you spend this time discussing your opinion on the matter the 'conspiracy theorists' are out there learning stuff

if you think a 'conspiracy theorist' is talking shit you shouldn't imo launch off on some rant about how all conspiracy theories are horse shit or that all conspiracy theorists are intellectually lacking and paranoid

What you should do imo is TEST their theory

probe it....ask them questions. Find out if they know what they are talking about or if they are talking shit.

This way you can find out if they know what they're talking about, what the foundations of their claim are or if there are any foundations, how intellectually sound they are and indeed ultimately you could even determine if they are in a paranoid state of mind or just aware of things that you aren't

However if you do this then for it to work you MUST give them a fair hearing.....you MUST look at the information they present to you otherwise you will never know if they have any grounds for their claims or not

If you don't come to the discussion with an open mindthen you come wth a closed mind...and that is not a fair hearing

On the contrary, I think if a conspiracy theorist is going to make claims, they need to be substantiated.

I object to wild claims of convoluted conspiracies without any proof. I am especially repelled by conspiracy theorists who post a quote from a conspiracy theorist, or a youtube video of another conspiracy theorist prattling, as evidence of conspiracy theory.

I remind you of a recent rant, where you complained that people don't look up and care about contrails full of deliberately dispersed toxins. Where's the proof that contrails are actually being seeded with anything but regular exhaust fumes from the burning of regular petroleum fuel?