s*i
2 楼
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-
Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories
In the days following the bombings at the Boston Marathon, speculation
online regarding the identity and motive of the unknown perpetrator or
perpetrators was rampant. And once the Tsarnaev brothers were identified and
the manhunt came to a close, the speculation didn’t cease. It took a new
form. A sampling: Maybe the brothers Tsarnaev were just patsies, fall guys
set up to take the heat for a mysterious Saudi with high-level connections;
or maybe they were innocent, but instead of the Saudis, the actual bomber
had acted on behalf of a rogue branch of our own government; or what if the
Tsarnaevs were behind the attacks, but were secretly working for a larger
organization?
Crazy as these theories are, those propagating them are not — they’re
quite normal, in fact. But recent scientific research tells us this much: if
you think one of the theories above is plausible, you probably feel the
same way about the others, even though they contradict one another. And it’
s very likely that this isn’t the only news story that makes you feel as if
shadowy forces are behind major world events.
“The best predictor of belief in a conspiracy theory is belief in other
conspiracy theories,” says Viren Swami, a psychology professor who studies
conspiracy belief at the University of Westminster in England. Psychologists
say that’s because a conspiracy theory isn’t so much a response to a
single event as it is an expression of an overarching worldview.
As Richard Hofstadter wrote in his seminal 1965 book, “The Paranoid Style
in American Politics,” conspiracy theories, especially those involving
meddlesome foreigners, are a favorite pastime in this nation. Americans have
always had the sneaking suspicion that somebody was out to get us — be it
Freemasons, Catholics or communists. But in recent years, it seems as if
every tragedy comes with a round of yarn-spinning, as the Web fills with
stories about “false flag” attacks and “crisis actors” — not mere
theorizing but arguments for the existence of a completely alternate version
of reality.
Since Hofstadter’s book was published, our access to information has vastly
improved, which you would think would have helped minimize such wild
speculation. But according to recent scientific research on the matter, it
most likely only serves to make theories more convincing to the public. What
’s even more surprising is that this sort of theorizing isn’t limited to
those on the margins. Perfectly sane minds possess an incredible capacity
for developing narratives, and even some of the wildest conspiracy theories
can be grounded in rational thinking, which makes them that much more
pernicious. Consider this: 63 percent of registered American voters believe
in at least one political conspiracy theory, according to a recent poll
conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University.
While psychologists can’t know exactly what goes on inside our heads, they
have, through surveys and laboratory studies, come up with a set of traits
that correlate well with conspiracy belief. In 2010, Swami and a co-author
summarized this research in The Psychologist, a scientific journal. They
found, perhaps surprisingly, that believers are more likely to be cynical
about the world in general and politics in particular. Conspiracy theories
also seem to be more compelling to those with low self-worth, especially
with regard to their sense of agency in the world at large. Conspiracy
theories appear to be a way of reacting to uncertainty and powerlessness.
Economic recessions, terrorist attacks and natural disasters are massive,
looming threats, but we have little power over when they occur or how or
what happens afterward. In these moments of powerlessness and uncertainty, a
part of the brain called the amygdala kicks into action. Paul Whalen, a
scientist at Dartmouth College who studies the amygdala, says it doesn’t
exactly do anything on its own. Instead, the amygdala jump-starts the rest
of the brain into analytical overdrive — prompting repeated reassessments
of information in an attempt to create a coherent and understandable
narrative, to understand what just happened, what threats still exist and
what should be done now. This may be a useful way to understand how, writ
large, the brain’s capacity for generating new narratives after shocking
events can contribute to so much paranoia in this country.
“If you know the truth and others don’t, that’s one way you can reassert
feelings of having agency,” Swami says. It can be comforting to do your own
research even if that research is flawed. It feels good to be the wise old
goat in a flock of sheep.
Surprisingly, Swami’s work has also turned up a correlation between
conspiracy theorizing and strong support of democratic principles. But this
isn’t quite so strange if you consider the context. Kathryn Olmsted, a
historian at the University of California, Davis, says that conspiracy
theories wouldn’t exist in a world in which real conspiracies don’t exist.
And those conspiracies — Watergate or the Iran-contra Affair — often
involve manipulating and circumventing the democratic process. Even people
who believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was actually a drama staged by
actors couch their arguments in concern for the preservation of the Second
Amendment.
Our access to high-quality information has not, unfortunately, ushered in an
age in which disagreements of this sort can easily be solved with a quick
Google search. In fact, the Internet has made things worse. Confirmation
bias — the tendency to pay more attention to evidence that supports what
you already believe — is a well-documented and common human failing. People
have been writing about it for centuries. In recent years, though,
researchers have found that confirmation bias is not easy to overcome. You
can’t just drown it in facts.
In 2006, the political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler identified
a phenomenon called the “backfire effect.” They showed that efforts to
debunk inaccurate political information can leave people more convinced that
false information is true than they would have been otherwise. Nyhan isn’t
sure why this happens, but it appears to be more prevalent when the bad
information helps bolster a favored worldview or ideology.
In that way, Swami says, the Internet and other media have helped perpetuate
paranoia. Not only does more exposure to these alternative narratives help
engender belief in conspiracies, he says, but the Internet’s tendency
toward tribalism helps reinforce misguided beliefs.
And that’s a problem. Because while believing George W. Bush helped plan
the Sept. 11 attacks might make you feel in control, it doesn’t actually
make you so. Earlier this year, Karen Douglas, a University of Kent
psychologist, along with a student, published research in which they exposed
people to conspiracy theories about climate change and the death of
Princess Diana. Those who got information supporting the theories but not
information debunking them were more likely to withdraw from participation
in politics and were less likely to take action to reduce their carbon
footprints.
Alex Jones, a syndicated radio host, can build fame as a conspiracy peddler;
politicians can hint at conspiracies for votes and leverage; but if
conspiracy theories are a tool the average person uses to reclaim his sense
of agency and access to democracy, it’s an ineffective tool. It can even
have dangerous health implications. For example, research has shown that
African-Americans who believe AIDS is a weapon loosed on them by the
government (remembering the abuses of the Tuskegee experiment) are less
likely to practice protected sex. And if you believe that governments or
corporations are hiding evidence that vaccines harm children, you’re less
likely to have your children vaccinated. The result: pockets of measles and
whooping-cough infections and a few deaths in places with low child-
vaccination rates.
Psychologists aren’t sure whether powerlessness causes conspiracy theories
or vice versa. Either way, the current scientific thinking suggests these
beliefs are nothing more than an extreme form of cynicism, a turning away
from politics and traditional media — which only perpetuates the problem.
Maggie Koerth-Baker is science editor at BoingBoing.net and author of “
Before the Lights Go Out,” on the future of energy production and
consumption.
Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories
In the days following the bombings at the Boston Marathon, speculation
online regarding the identity and motive of the unknown perpetrator or
perpetrators was rampant. And once the Tsarnaev brothers were identified and
the manhunt came to a close, the speculation didn’t cease. It took a new
form. A sampling: Maybe the brothers Tsarnaev were just patsies, fall guys
set up to take the heat for a mysterious Saudi with high-level connections;
or maybe they were innocent, but instead of the Saudis, the actual bomber
had acted on behalf of a rogue branch of our own government; or what if the
Tsarnaevs were behind the attacks, but were secretly working for a larger
organization?
Crazy as these theories are, those propagating them are not — they’re
quite normal, in fact. But recent scientific research tells us this much: if
you think one of the theories above is plausible, you probably feel the
same way about the others, even though they contradict one another. And it’
s very likely that this isn’t the only news story that makes you feel as if
shadowy forces are behind major world events.
“The best predictor of belief in a conspiracy theory is belief in other
conspiracy theories,” says Viren Swami, a psychology professor who studies
conspiracy belief at the University of Westminster in England. Psychologists
say that’s because a conspiracy theory isn’t so much a response to a
single event as it is an expression of an overarching worldview.
As Richard Hofstadter wrote in his seminal 1965 book, “The Paranoid Style
in American Politics,” conspiracy theories, especially those involving
meddlesome foreigners, are a favorite pastime in this nation. Americans have
always had the sneaking suspicion that somebody was out to get us — be it
Freemasons, Catholics or communists. But in recent years, it seems as if
every tragedy comes with a round of yarn-spinning, as the Web fills with
stories about “false flag” attacks and “crisis actors” — not mere
theorizing but arguments for the existence of a completely alternate version
of reality.
Since Hofstadter’s book was published, our access to information has vastly
improved, which you would think would have helped minimize such wild
speculation. But according to recent scientific research on the matter, it
most likely only serves to make theories more convincing to the public. What
’s even more surprising is that this sort of theorizing isn’t limited to
those on the margins. Perfectly sane minds possess an incredible capacity
for developing narratives, and even some of the wildest conspiracy theories
can be grounded in rational thinking, which makes them that much more
pernicious. Consider this: 63 percent of registered American voters believe
in at least one political conspiracy theory, according to a recent poll
conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University.
While psychologists can’t know exactly what goes on inside our heads, they
have, through surveys and laboratory studies, come up with a set of traits
that correlate well with conspiracy belief. In 2010, Swami and a co-author
summarized this research in The Psychologist, a scientific journal. They
found, perhaps surprisingly, that believers are more likely to be cynical
about the world in general and politics in particular. Conspiracy theories
also seem to be more compelling to those with low self-worth, especially
with regard to their sense of agency in the world at large. Conspiracy
theories appear to be a way of reacting to uncertainty and powerlessness.
Economic recessions, terrorist attacks and natural disasters are massive,
looming threats, but we have little power over when they occur or how or
what happens afterward. In these moments of powerlessness and uncertainty, a
part of the brain called the amygdala kicks into action. Paul Whalen, a
scientist at Dartmouth College who studies the amygdala, says it doesn’t
exactly do anything on its own. Instead, the amygdala jump-starts the rest
of the brain into analytical overdrive — prompting repeated reassessments
of information in an attempt to create a coherent and understandable
narrative, to understand what just happened, what threats still exist and
what should be done now. This may be a useful way to understand how, writ
large, the brain’s capacity for generating new narratives after shocking
events can contribute to so much paranoia in this country.
“If you know the truth and others don’t, that’s one way you can reassert
feelings of having agency,” Swami says. It can be comforting to do your own
research even if that research is flawed. It feels good to be the wise old
goat in a flock of sheep.
Surprisingly, Swami’s work has also turned up a correlation between
conspiracy theorizing and strong support of democratic principles. But this
isn’t quite so strange if you consider the context. Kathryn Olmsted, a
historian at the University of California, Davis, says that conspiracy
theories wouldn’t exist in a world in which real conspiracies don’t exist.
And those conspiracies — Watergate or the Iran-contra Affair — often
involve manipulating and circumventing the democratic process. Even people
who believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was actually a drama staged by
actors couch their arguments in concern for the preservation of the Second
Amendment.
Our access to high-quality information has not, unfortunately, ushered in an
age in which disagreements of this sort can easily be solved with a quick
Google search. In fact, the Internet has made things worse. Confirmation
bias — the tendency to pay more attention to evidence that supports what
you already believe — is a well-documented and common human failing. People
have been writing about it for centuries. In recent years, though,
researchers have found that confirmation bias is not easy to overcome. You
can’t just drown it in facts.
In 2006, the political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler identified
a phenomenon called the “backfire effect.” They showed that efforts to
debunk inaccurate political information can leave people more convinced that
false information is true than they would have been otherwise. Nyhan isn’t
sure why this happens, but it appears to be more prevalent when the bad
information helps bolster a favored worldview or ideology.
In that way, Swami says, the Internet and other media have helped perpetuate
paranoia. Not only does more exposure to these alternative narratives help
engender belief in conspiracies, he says, but the Internet’s tendency
toward tribalism helps reinforce misguided beliefs.
And that’s a problem. Because while believing George W. Bush helped plan
the Sept. 11 attacks might make you feel in control, it doesn’t actually
make you so. Earlier this year, Karen Douglas, a University of Kent
psychologist, along with a student, published research in which they exposed
people to conspiracy theories about climate change and the death of
Princess Diana. Those who got information supporting the theories but not
information debunking them were more likely to withdraw from participation
in politics and were less likely to take action to reduce their carbon
footprints.
Alex Jones, a syndicated radio host, can build fame as a conspiracy peddler;
politicians can hint at conspiracies for votes and leverage; but if
conspiracy theories are a tool the average person uses to reclaim his sense
of agency and access to democracy, it’s an ineffective tool. It can even
have dangerous health implications. For example, research has shown that
African-Americans who believe AIDS is a weapon loosed on them by the
government (remembering the abuses of the Tuskegee experiment) are less
likely to practice protected sex. And if you believe that governments or
corporations are hiding evidence that vaccines harm children, you’re less
likely to have your children vaccinated. The result: pockets of measles and
whooping-cough infections and a few deaths in places with low child-
vaccination rates.
Psychologists aren’t sure whether powerlessness causes conspiracy theories
or vice versa. Either way, the current scientific thinking suggests these
beliefs are nothing more than an extreme form of cynicism, a turning away
from politics and traditional media — which only perpetuates the problem.
Maggie Koerth-Baker is science editor at BoingBoing.net and author of “
Before the Lights Go Out,” on the future of energy production and
consumption.
m*s
3 楼
an extreme form of cynicism
m*s
4 楼
can't save people out of backwater.
s*i
5 楼
Exactly.
【在 m****s 的大作中提到】
: an extreme form of cynicism
【在 m****s 的大作中提到】
: an extreme form of cynicism
m*s
6 楼
Illumination and enlightenment is futile.
【在 s**i 的大作中提到】
: Exactly.
【在 s**i 的大作中提到】
: Exactly.
h*a
7 楼
huaja (pat), 信区: WaterWorld
标 题: 罗胖:阴谋,是可能的吗?
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Jan 5 23:13:33 2014, 美东)
罗胖 :网友说你拿了美国的钱 我不认为这是什么大问题 拿了美国的钱 那又能怎么样
呢？作为一个自由人 拿某个组织的钱 替某个组织发声 这没有什么问题， 但是在转基
因方面 我希望你尊重一下 国内这些反转基因的同胞 无论他她们对与错 您都应该支持
他她们有不吃转基因食品的权力
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNjUwMzI3MjY4.html
【在 s**i 的大作中提到】
: Exactly.
标 题: 罗胖:阴谋,是可能的吗?
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Jan 5 23:13:33 2014, 美东)
罗胖 :网友说你拿了美国的钱 我不认为这是什么大问题 拿了美国的钱 那又能怎么样
呢？作为一个自由人 拿某个组织的钱 替某个组织发声 这没有什么问题， 但是在转基
因方面 我希望你尊重一下 国内这些反转基因的同胞 无论他她们对与错 您都应该支持
他她们有不吃转基因食品的权力
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNjUwMzI3MjY4.html
【在 s**i 的大作中提到】
: Exactly.
相关阅读
真心希望维汉两族能够和平共处飞机高度计可能出了问题 (转载)淫荡艳星龚玥菲秀巨乳！当众脱丁字裤，不断跳艳舞！【视频】南韩波音客机在三藩坠机！靠，差点坐了这趟飞机！习李对中国很多事情突然恍然大悟,只能说明胡温太烂 (转载)我觉得Trayvon Martin案的那个Bao验尸官，其实没啥错紧急撤离 (转载)玻利维亚总统向斯诺登提供庇护Re: 好像是被救火车压死的 (转载)对不起，我不能再灌，我有点累了。。。支持国人不寄安全带和抢行李下飞机 (转载)‘ 朱令 ’二字真的成了今年的流行语飞出去那俩小孩没系安全带？搜狐曝中共抗战时对日共主席性贿赂 (转载)广西贺江铊超标2.14倍 广东封开紧急停水哥此生最后悔的是说过一句伤害初恋自尊心的话支边新疆的人做梦也想不到子女在内地像老鼠被歧视 (转载)老公觉得亏大了。女人啊， 木有李宗盛就没有林忆莲的歌坛地位卖假奶粉的不得好死 (转载)