[robot-wrangler]

It's interesting right? Now there's too much distrust of authority and also not enough. Even the word "skeptic" is sometimes used to refer to people who "do their own research" and doggedly latch on to wild conspiracy theories.

Avoiding groupthink is another slightly different positive spin on (my read of) the underlying message. There's such a thing as toxic individualism too, but if there's a "bad" way to be a free-thinker then you could say it usually has a pretty limited blast radius for society in general and it isn't a contagious kind of madness either

[pjc50]

So.. a lot of this is "negative polarisation" combined with "exactly wrong". People see something bad happening, or come to distrust a piece of mainstream belief/reporting when it gets caught in a contradiction or turns out on subsequent evidence to be wrong. That is the healthy side of skepticism.

The problem comes in this causing people to do one or both of:

- immediately flip to believing the direct opposite, without evidence that's true either (most things are not excluded-middle)

- immediately imprint on the first non-mainstream source they find and start treating it as gospel

> but if there's a "bad" way to be a free-thinker then you could say it usually has a pretty limited blast radius for society in general and it isn't a contagious kind of madness either

It absolutely can be contagious. Sometimes that's for the good, sometimes bad, quite often the mixed result of getting to the right place only after a fraught disruptive time. Martin Luther, originator of the listicle, was correct in a lot of the theses but also started the domino chain for some of the most lethal wars in Europe. VI Lenin was right about the problems and wrong about the solutions. And so on.

[keybored]

The system isn’t static. Anti-authority is not countered by authority, or the same kind of authority. It’s countered by co-opting anti-authority.

[qsera]

>wild conspiracy theories.

Do you know the difference between a conspiracy "nut", and a rational person?

For a "conspiracy nut", understanding that there is sufficient incentive (also implies a lack of deterrent) for X to do Y is proof enough that X is doing Y.

For a "mainstream" person, that is not enough. They require real, solid proof to consider that X is doing Y.

Note that this is about deciding their own behavior, and not about handing capital punishment for X.

I ll let you decide who is smarter...

[robot-wrangler]

Not sure you can purely talk about "is the motivation likely?" and end up with qanon stuff. This leaves out motivated reasoning coming from the rube, plus a bunch of other things like narratives that are sufficiently fun / scandalous /surprising

[M95D]

A "mainstream" person can also consider past evidence of A, B and C doing Y and assume that X is doing Y too without any evidence about Y.

[jjcob]

"Mainstream" people will also look at past evidence that A, B and C did Y, and say something like "that was N years ago, surely nobody would do this today".

[latexr]

> Do you know the difference between a conspiracy "nut", and a rational person?

The former is trivially manipulated, can be made to believe anything by appealing to their inherent obvious biases, and will double down on their beliefs even when presented with irrefutable proof to the contrary. The latter can detect false dichotomies, understands answers are often nuanced instead of black and white, and is capable of changing their mind when new evidence comes to light.

[qsera]

Yes, these categories are sometimes simply separated by what they considers as "irrefutable proof".

[latexr]

See “The Final Experiment”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Experiment_(expediti...

In particular the “Reactions” section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Experiment_(expediti...

You’ll find this bit:

> Alabama pastor Dean Odle suggested that Satan created a fireball to act as a false Sun.

That is cuckoo cuckoo bananas to a point only “conspiracy nut” applies.

[throw0101c]

See perhaps René Descartes:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon

[latexr]

That thought experiment assumes the whole world around you is a fabricated illusion. In which case it would be unnecessary for Satan to fake the Sun at that point, especially considering the pastor wasn’t even there. If everything around you is an illusion, there’s no need for 5D subterfuge chess, the devil could just fake whatever.

So no, Descartes doesn’t apply. Unless I were the one being tested (seeing as I’m thinking, and therefore am). In which case that particular lie would be especially hilariously stupid.

[secretsatan]

Looking at conspiracy nuts joining ice and gleefully celebrating unidentified armed goons abducting people, i think they more likely think, well, i would do y, so they must be doing it against me.

[aa-jv]

The difference is that one follows the collective/reactive order of things, and the other doesn't.

"Everyone knows" is the greatest conspiracy of all. Its quite possible to be a 'nut' simply by referring to what "everyone knows" ... this is a thought-stopping meme designed to end challenge to authority, since "everyone" is the ultimate authority.