Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
'Psychological' Disorders
-
29-10-2008 11:18pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
And there's this new study showing how people who feel they are less in control tend to find patterns in randomness.
It's called apophenia, and tends to be associated with highly intelligent minds with nothing much to do
Apropos of pathologization, Ben Mack had an argument with someone who made an equivalent argument, that thinking about socialism is a sign of a weak mind. His answer?
'Um, can we diagram that? If thinking about socialism is a sign of a weak mind, and you're talking about how thinking about it is a sign of a weak mind...um...'
There's rabid lunatics on both sides, well-thought out questions on both sides, but once someone makes a symptomal argument, that you think that way because you're sick, for me its a Godwin-equivalent. Well yeah, I might be, but that's A: beside the argument and B: most folks are if you look hard enough.
Broadly 'dissident' views have usually been 'othered' or seen as crazy by conformists; doesn't mean CT's are sane, but saying thinking about them means you're 'crazy', well...any position outside of 'consensus' is 'crazy' if you accept that the consensus defines what is sane. Which would be crazy!
Thankfully, psychology has started moving towards things like Positive Psychology (Seligman) rather than 'amagad yousa all so sick, yousa all need medicine!'. Still long ways to go though.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
mahatma_coat wrote:Some on the Skeptics/Debunkers are making the claim that peopl who believe in Conspiracy theories are somewhat mentally deficit, they have referred to it as an illness.
well I expect the same individuals to roll out some evidence for this.King Mob wrote:Yes, confirmation bias exists, there is actual evidence for it and has been studied by actual experts.kama wrote:There's rabid lunatics on both sides, well-thought out questions on both sides, but once someone makes a symptomal argument, that you think that way because you're sick, for me its a Godwin-equivalent. Well yeah, I might be, but that's A: beside the argument and B: most folks are if you look hard enough.
The OP asked for evidence of this so called sickness. You provided some links. The only link I looked at was the first one. I have no idea what it means as I have already stated, I know nothing about psychology. I do know, however that the use of disinformation and discrediting are used by people to make their own argument seem stronger or indeed to lessen the impact of their opponents point of view. To refer to something that can be construed to be of a dubious nature only heightens the confusion that is created by both conspiracy theorists and debunkers.
If someone can create enough doubt in a theory, it can be debunked. I provided a link to create that possibility of confusion. It doesn't matter if you think my argument makes no sense. By making the argument I'm not necessarily talking to you, I'm talking to the masses of people who aren't sure. By simply linking to the Guardian article, some of them have already decided that what you provided holds no water and that I'm right (you didn't make an argument, or even a statement). If I were an expert of some type I could dissect your later points bit by bit until Mr. Average wasn't really sure what he was reading, what he had read, what he had seen or what he had been told and eventually decided to go for the one he felt most comfortable with.
I had lunch in a pub with a friend on 11 September 2001 and watched Sky News as the first tower fell. When we discussed it later I asked him why he thought the tower fell. He said it was obviously because a plane hit it. I told him it was strange that a plane hitting a 100 floor skyscraper that had been designed to withstand such a crash should fall so easily. We both shrugged and left it at that. When he discussed it with his wife she told him I was a conspiracy theorist. Suddenly I'm a whacky nut-job. How easily that can happen.
You have used the phrase "strawman argument" in this thread three times. I'll check wikipedia and find out what that is. But I will say this, it could be argued that you use that expression to divert attention away from what is actually being said and so are in some way trying to discredit me.
(Now how many people who may read this thread some day will think, "yeah, he is just trying to discredit him" or "look at that, he's right, your man's talking through his hat" ?)
The 9/11 Truth people brought out experts to give evidence that the towers couldn't have fallen in that way without - let's call it artificial help. Because the whole thing was labelled a conspiracy theory, the people who promoted the official line effectively said "those guys are crackpots to believe that bunch of nonsense, and we have experts to prove it", rolled out their experts and "proved" their point. By stating that the people who questioned the official explanation were "crackpots for believing that nonsense", they effectively discredited them without providing evidence of their "crackpottedness" and endeared themselves to people who didn't want to be labelled in that way.
So evidence has been delivered by both sides of that argument, but for some reason the only people who are "sick" are the ones who still question the official line.
I could say this. "It doesn't matter how much evidence you put in front of these people, they'll still refuse to believe it". Sound familiar? But who am I talking about?
Debunkers use all sorts of ammunition to make their arguments including discrediting their opponents and their experts, sometimes with tenuous links. What I've shown here is that it doesn't take much effort at all to debunk. A little bit of slight of hand is really all that's needed. And it doesn't even have to be very well done either. So I guess you could say I was way off topic.
Anyway, Mahatma_coat asked for evidence. As Climate Expert says, only a trained professional can be a judge of someone's mental health, so real evidence probably won't be forthcoming. But please, don't for a minute believe that only people who think outside the box a little are somehow mentally challenged. There are, I am sure, many more inside that box, who fit in there just as neatly.0 -
So without examining or even trying to understand you disregard it because it is in opposition to your beliefs?The OP asked for evidence of this so called sickness. You provided some links. The only link I looked at was the first one. I have no idea what it means as I have already stated, I know nothing about psychology. I do know, however that the use of disinformation and discrediting are used by people to make their own argument seem stronger or indeed to lessen the impact of their opponents point of view. To refer to something that can be construed to be of a dubious nature only heightens the confusion that is created by both conspiracy theorists and debunkers.
Wow thats very logical.
So you use misinformation to argue against scientific research?If someone can create enough doubt in a theory, it can be debunked. I provided a link to create that possibility of confusion. It doesn't matter if you think my argument makes no sense. By making the argument I'm not necessarily talking to you, I'm talking to the masses of people who aren't sure. By simply linking to the Guardian article, some of them have already decided that what you provided holds no water and that I'm right (you didn't make an argument, or even a statement). If I were an expert of some type I could dissect your later points bit by bit until Mr. Average wasn't really sure what he was reading, what he had read, what he had seen or what he had been told and eventually decided to go for the one he felt most comfortable with.
Instead of addressing anything in the substance of evidence you distract with irrelevant information? Way to get the truth out there!
Ever think that maybe your arguement doesn't hold water or isn't based on logic or evidence? And maybe your believe despite evidence to the contrary and lack of evidence of a shadowy conspiracy might make you seem a little whacky?I had lunch in a pub with a friend on 11 September 2001 and watched Sky News as the first tower fell. When we discussed it later I asked him why he thought the tower fell. He said it was obviously because a plane hit it. I told him it was strange that a plane hitting a 100 floor skyscraper that had been designed to withstand such a crash should fall so easily. We both shrugged and left it at that. When he discussed it with his wife she told him I was a conspiracy theorist. Suddenly I'm a whacky nut-job. How easily that can happen.
Or it is possible that you are using a strawman argument?You have used the phrase "strawman argument" in this thread three times. I'll check wikipedia and find out what that is. But I will say this, it could be argued that you use that expression to divert attention away from what is actually being said and so are in some way trying to discredit me.
(Now how many people who may read this thread some day will think, "yeah, he is just trying to discredit him" or "look at that, he's right, your man's talking through his hat" ?)
Or maybe everything they're arguments are based on poor logic and evidence and their refusal to critically evaluate their claims makes them crackpots?The 9/11 Truth people brought out experts to give evidence that the towers couldn't have fallen in that way without - let's call it artificial help. Because the whole thing was labelled a conspiracy theory, the people who promoted the official line effectively said "those guys are crackpots to believe that bunch of nonsense, and we have experts to prove it", rolled out their experts and "proved" their point. By stating that the people who questioned the official explanation were "crackpots for believing that nonsense", they effectively discredited them without providing evidence of their "crackpottedness" and endeared themselves to people who didn't want to be labelled in that way.
So evidence has been delivered by both sides of that argument, but for some reason the only people who are "sick" are the ones who still question the official line.
I could say this. "It doesn't matter how much evidence you put in front of these people, they'll still refuse to believe it". Sound familiar? But who am I talking about?
If you read any of my post or any of the links I provided you'd see that those had nothing to do with mental health nor did I say people who believe in cts are deficient.Anyway, Mahatma_coat asked for evidence. As Climate Expert says, only a trained professional can be a judge of someone's mental health, so real evidence probably won't be forthcoming. But please, don't for a minute believe that only people who think outside the box a little are somehow mentally challenged. There are, I am sure, many more inside that box, who fit in there just as neatly.
They are normal psychological pitfalls that could effect anyone and that lead to people believing things for which there is no evidence for.
What you're doing is essentially what you erroneously think debunkers are doing. You're telling people not to listen to actual experts because they only discredit the believers, and you're telling people not to look at the evidence themselves. That seems very hypocritical.0 -
So without examining or even trying to understand you disregard it because it is in opposition to your beliefs?
Wow thats very logical.
Nope. I have no belief either way on this issue. And therefore didn't bother to investigate any of the links you provided. I simply pointed to a piece that inferred that Wason's tests weren't recognised by all psychologists. This tactic has been used by debunkers irrespective of any evidence provided by them.So you use misinformation to argue against scientific research?
Instead of addressing anything in the substance of evidence you distract with irrelevant information? Way to get the truth out there!
that's a bit closer to what I've done. Yes.Ever think that maybe your arguement doesn't hold water or isn't based on logic or evidence? And maybe your believe despite evidence to the contrary and lack of evidence of a shadowy conspiracy might make you seem a little whacky?
On Sept. 11 2001, because I felt that the towers fell very easily, I was labelled, quite innocently, a conspiracy theorist. There was no evidence to refute my thoughts ( ?? ). No-one was talking about shadowy conspiracies at that time. In fact the first time I heard of a conspiracy theory was after watching a tv documentary in February or March 2002.Or it is possible that you are using a strawman argument?
I haven't checked wiki for that one yet.
Or maybe everything they're arguments are based on poor logic and evidence and their refusal to critically evaluate their claims makes them crackpots?
I think you're simply ignoring my point here. People who "suffer" from these conditions you pointed to are not necessarily on one side of an argument or another.
The statement below was made earlier. The poster seems to be fixed in his mindset and uses the "we must be right because our evidence is better than yours" argument. I think I've said it already but by choosing to reject the other evidence he could be accused of being somehow mentally deficient. He then uses the "there's no such thing as a shadowy cabal" response to add weight to his argument. This tactic, of course, is generally used in the knowledge that this will gain support (or non-support of the other side) from those who would never want to be associated with the "nut-jobs""Dissident" views are considered crazy because they are based on poor logic, faulty reasoning and no evidence.
The "conformist" views tend to be backed up with logic reason and evidence, not because some shadowy cabal decides what is the norm.
In reality, this whole thread has nothing to do with truth or evidence. It's got to do with trying to influence the minds of the masses and the tactics used to do so. My argument is made in a very benign way without referring to evidence as such (as there's no need to). Anti conspiracy theorists are now using another weapon in their arsenal. This is a simple one to show that CTers are all just mad loonies and using medical theories to "prove" it.
This one is about to start going round in circles, so, as I don't want to be driven any crazier than I already seemingly am, I'll leave it that. Cheers0 -
No one test he did has doubt over it. How does that invalidate anything exactly?Nope. I have no belief either way on this issue. And therefore didn't bother to investigate any of the links you provided. I simply pointed to a piece that inferred that Wason's tests weren't recognised by all psychologists. This tactic has been used by debunkers irrespective of any evidence provided by them.
When debunkers cast doubt on a particular researcher it usually has something to do with the topic at hand. That and the researcher tends to be the only one supporting his particular theory.
That's a bad thing, misinformation doesn't lead to the truth. It only reinforces bad theories.that's a bit closer to what I've done. Yes.
Trust me you don't have to know the definition of a logical fallacy to do one.I haven't checked wiki for that one yet.
And you are using a strawman argument.
I know, I said that the can effect everyone. It seems you are the one ignoring my points.I think you're simply ignoring my point here. People who "suffer" from these conditions you pointed to are not necessarily on one side of an argument or another.
Having better evidence does mean its right, it's kinda the basis of science and logic. This will be the third time I've said that CTers are mental deficient , just falling for normal psychological effects.The statement below was made earlier. The poster seems to be fixed in his mindset and uses the "we must be right because our evidence is better than yours" argument. I think I've said it already but by choosing to reject the other evidence he could be accused of being somehow mentally deficient. He then uses the "there's no such thing as a shadowy cabal" response to add weight to his argument. This tactic, of course, is generally used in the knowledge that this will gain support (or non-support of the other side) from those who would never want to be associated with the "nut-jobs"
For the second time: these aren't medical issues but if you read any of the links you know that.In reality, this whole thread has nothing to do with truth or evidence. It's got to do with trying to influence the minds of the masses and the tactics used to do so. My argument is made in a very benign way without referring to evidence as such (as there's no need to). Anti conspiracy theorists are now using another weapon in their arsenal. This is a simple one to show that CTers are all just mad loonies and using medical theories to "prove" it.
This one is about to start going round in circles, so, as I don't want to be driven any crazier than I already seemingly am, I'll leave it that. Cheers
Your argument is using misinformation rather than logic and evidence, I would not call that benign.
But tell me, without evidence how exactly can you prove anything?0 -
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement