Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things : skeptic

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

In my experience it's just plain old greed.

I have a lot of highly educated and very intelligent friends. The kind of people that can tell me a lot about things like art history, politics, science, physics and medicine. And almost all of them are conservative politically with a mindset that frames the world only for themselves.

They show empathy but only in the immediate circumstance. They will be kind open and caring and honest with someone in person at the moment. But get them to have a conversation about their feelings about wealth inequality and they cringe at the thought of giving up a penny for anyone.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There is that for sure, but "smart people believing stupid things" occurs outside the political/economic realms as well.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago

I have seen my share of book smart university educated people doing absolutely stupid things.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Greed certainly influences a lot of behaviour that we'd otherwise consider....questionable.

Do you tend to find they believe in conspiracy theories and nonsense that benefit them personally?

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's the contradictory part .... they are intelligent enough to see through the outlandish conspiracy theories and fringe fascist ideas but at the same time, they are the kind of people that wouldn't mind if a more conservative or even fascist government took over if it meant they could pay less taxes or 'get rid of the poor'.

I remember once having a talk with a friend of mine with a great education in physics and science. He works in power generation as a major contractor making him a small millionaire. I talked to him about wealth equality once and he claimed that the work he does, he enjoys and doesn't really do it for the money but to apply his knowledge and expertise. I suggested the idea of providing a wealth cap to the richest people in the world ... to cap off wealth at $100 million and cut the person off from everything after and let them live their life to make way for others. He cringed at the thought and told me 'but that would remove the incentive for anyone to do anything in any field. Why work all your life only to be stopped by a cultural limit to wealth?'. I reminded him about his comment about not working for the money ... and our conversation became an exercise in complicated twisted logic to explain away why no one should be limited with their wealth. It ended by him casually, playfully but not directly referring to me as a communist.

They represent the third of the population that would causally stand by and watch the world burn if it meant that it wouldn't affect their wealth or position in life. They would rather watch a fascist third take over with authoritarian government, fight the bottom third ... as long as no one bothered them.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That is not an unfamiliar experience, unfortunately. I often wonder if a significant portion of the population are just born without the ability to empathise, and they just hide it really well.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's partly just human nature. I'm a guilty of it and you are probably just as susceptible as anyone else.

It's easy to empathize for someone who needs help right in front of you. Most people would probably help a starving African who was dying of thirst and hunger right in front of them. Most people would give a dollar or two to some poor kid that asked for help in the slums of India if they were right there.

But if you turn it into a casual conversation where the people involved are not in your immediate area, it's a lot easier to dismiss, disregard, ignore and simplify the arguments about what should or shouldn't be done.

It's a lot easier to be unsympathetic if the person or people you are talking about are in some far off place that might as well not exist to you.

Multiply that logic about a billion times and everyone the world over has little to no care about any other individual on the other side of the planet .. regardless of how intelligent they are.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps it's the ability to abstract 'empathy' into a hypothetical or scenario that is non-local. For example, I've known anti-abortionists who were proud members of the movement until they themselves needed an abortion, and then suddenly, their entire philosophy of life does a one-eighty. Were they unable to imagine what it was like until they were in the middle of it?

Is there a component of intelligence in being able to imagine yourself in situation you aren't currently in and thus reason how you should treat someone else who is in that predicament?

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Most people I find (and I'm often a victim of it myself) are selfish and isolated.

Most people see the world and the universe as a place that exists for them ... they have a hard time accepting that they are just a small part of the universe. To think of yourself so humbly accepts the fact that you don't matter that much to the universe and most people don't like that idea.

It's that while modern philosophy of individualism and that you are the creator and manager of your own world.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is there a solution to this problem?

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Time ..... and I don't mean waiting a few years for some grand revolutionary way of thinking.

I mean evolutionary time scales of hundreds or even thousands of years for our species to evolve away from our cave man prehistoric mentalities.

When you graph out the age of our current species, we are closer to our prehistoric ancestors than we like to think. We are still a developing species that is built more for survival and aggression than as a modern technologically advanced society.

I have an old friend of mine who puts it more simply as "we are just monkeys driving cars"

The answer is time ..... a lot of time ..... for us to grow out of our old mentalities. Hopefully we can have that time.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Garbage psuedointellectual analysis.

Absolutely ridiculous to compare the Warren Commission to established scientific theories. Months before Kennedy's assassination, Allen Dulles, the man who turned the CIA into an organization that specialized in assassinating world leaders and covering it up, was fired by JFK. After his death, Dulles was placed on Warren Commission, in charge of investigating the event. Aside from this blatant conflict of interest, the commission proceeded to make an absolute joke of the proceedings, with key evidence such as the bullet that killed him having a breach in the chain of custody. There are real causes to be suspicious of the official story, and it's not really possible for anyone to conduct an independent investigation, basically the whole thing requires the assumption that Dulles is above suspicion.

Science does not do that. In science, you don't have to trust any one individual, because experiments are meant to be replicated and subject to peer review. By placing these things on the same level, Pinker is lending credibility to the US government and intelligence community at the expense of science.

He then goes on to lend credence to ridiculous COVID conspiracy theories and minimizes far-right, pro-Trump conspiracy theories, including Alex Jones.

Then he starts talking about Russia, "You see that Russia has tsars, then the Soviet Union, then Putin, so there's this historical continuity there," which an absolutely insane thing to say, arguing that Russians are just innately prone to rejecting "Enlightenment values" and to "authoritarianism." It's an extremely trite and lazy analysis which simply doesn't care about the vast historical differences between those three forms of government of the vastly different philosophical framework behind each. Has Stephen Pinker considered the possibility that the reason smart people believe stupid things is that overconfidence causes them to make broad sweeping judgements about fields outside their expertise without doing a thorough investigation?

Stopped watching as they start going into AI, not worth my time.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So who really killed Kennedy?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Likely Lee Harvey Oswald, but that doesn't mean that he was acting alone. The fact that he was killed before he could testify could indicate a cover-up.

I believe that Dulles orchestrated the assassination. The CIA had been assassinating democratically elected leaders in every far corner of the globe, if they were willing to overthrow the government of Guatemala over some bananas, I find it hard to believe that they didn't have a plan for what to do in the event that a US president went against their interests.

Dulles had both the means and motive to pull it off and cover it up afterwards, that doesn't conclusively prove he did it, but it's enough to establish reasonable suspicion.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So you genuinely believe the conspiracy theory that the CIA was behind the Kennedy assassination?

That's got to be the OG of conspiracy theories.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I do. That something is a conspiracy theory does not make it false, conspiracies do happen. For a long time, it would've been a conspiracy theory to say that the CIA was behind the 1953 Iranian coup, for instance. They covered it up for decades before finally admitting to it. The person who first broke the Watergate story was a woman named Martha Mitchell, who was branded as crazy and delusional before it was revealed that she was right. The government's illegal mass surveillance program was long dismissed as a conspiracy theory before Edward Snowden came forward with proof.

Placing these sorts of things on the same level as things that are scientifically proven to be false is harmful, both because it gives undue credibility to the government, and detracts from the credibility of science. There are scientific means of proving that the moon landing was real, that 9/11 was not faked, that the earth is not flat, that evolution happens, etc. But those things are categorically different from reasonable speculation about what intelligence agencies may be up to behind closed doors, in the absence of conclusive proof.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

What makes the Kennedy assassination fall in with the rest of those conspiracies is that it relies on the same suspension of reasonable alternatives.

Can you think of no other plausible explanation for why Dulles was selected to be on the committee? None?

Dulles would have to be the sort of person who would commit to murdering the US president over a grudge. A grudge he held for two years. And what would this murder achieve for him? Did he expect he would get his job back? Personal satisfaction? Was that really worth destabilising the nation he had been doing all his CIA work in support of? Not much pay off for the risk he was taking.

And how did he manged to rope in a disgraced former marine who had defected to the Soviets? A marine who only a few months had attempted to assassinate a US General?

As they say in the video, smart people belive stupid things for all sorts of reasons. Here the narrative that a lonely disturbed former marine was behind it all, just isn't appealing, "surely there's more to it?" we say.

You're not alone though, about 75% of Americans beleive in the kennedy conspiracy.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Can you think of no other plausible explanation for why Dulles was selected to be on the committee? None?

Of course there were reasons to select him, he was an expert in assassinations of world leaders, after all, but those reasons should have been overridden by the clear and obvious conflict of interest.

Dulles would have to be the sort of person who would commit to murdering the US president over a grudge. A grudge he held for two years. And what would this murder achieve for him? Did he expect he would get his job back? Personal satisfaction? Was that really worth destabilising the nation he had been doing all his CIA work in support of? Not much pay off for the risk he was taking.

He may have had a grudge and there may have been people still loyal to him in the intelligence community, but it's also a question of power and ideology. The Kennedy assassination allowed the intelligence community, that Dulles spent his whole career building and strengthening, to increase its power. By demonstrating that they have the means to assassinate a president who steps out of line, they can exert control over future presidents, and no president since Kennedy has gone so directly against the wishes of the intelligence community. Furthermore, following the failure of The Bay of Pigs, Kennedy became somewhat more inclined towards deescalation and coexistence with socialist countries and his firing of Dulles was only a part of that. Dulles' whole career was directly contrary to that approach, and he had had people killed over much lower stakes than that.

We're talking about controlling the direction of the most powerful nation in the world, and you're describing that as "not much pay off."

And how did he manged to rope in a disgraced former marine who had defected to the Soviets?

Had tried to defect to the Soviets. Tried and failed. I wonder, why do you think the Soviets refused to accept him? Could it be that they felt there were security risks, you know, that they didn't trust that his defection was genuine? There is little evidence that would suggest Oswald was actually a committed communist, and for instance Wikipedia cites his diary saying:

"I am starting to reconsider my desire about staying [in the USSR]. The work is drab, the money I get has nowhere to be spent. No nightclubs or bowling alleys, no places of recreation except the trade union dances. I have had enough."

The fact that he had tried to defect to the Soviets doesn't really remove suspicion from him. Surely, if my theory is correct, Dulles would have loved the opportunity to cast suspicion on the USSR.

A marine who only a few months had attempted to assassinate a US General?

Allegedly. If there had been proof of that, he wouldn't have been walking free.

Here the narrative that a lonely disturbed former marine was behind it all, just isn’t appealing, “surely there’s more to it?” we say.

No. For years I fully accepted the official story and wrote off alternatives as conspiracy theories, without looking into it. I changed my mind because I became aware of actual reasons to be suspicious, such as the breach in custody of the bullet and the conflict of interest with Dulles. The evidence is extremely shaky, which is very much consistent with the idea of a cover up. Before becoming aware of that evidence, I was willing to accept the official narrative.

There's nothing "stupid" about it. There are plenty of conspiracy theories that are stupid, that people believe for the reason you mention or other irrational reasons, but you can't just label something a conspiracy theory and then use that label to dismiss all criticism.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Of course there were reasons to select him, he was am expert in assassinations of world leaders, after all, but those reasons should have been overridden by the clear and obvious conflict of interest.

He planned the coups in Iran, Guatemala and Cuba but those didn't involve any assassinations. Is Dulles being an assassin part of the conspiracy as well? No evidence seems to exist.

But lets grant that because even then there is more plausible explanation why LBJ selected him for the board. The public at the time had no knowledge of the Kennedy administrations involvement in the bay of pigs disaster, Johnson wanted someone on the commission to make sure no awkward questions got asked.

He may have had a grudge and there may have been people still loyal to him in the intelligence community, but it's also a question of power and ideology. The Kennedy assassination allowed the intelligence community, that Dulles spent his whole career building and strengthening, to increase its power. By demonstrating that they have the means to assassinate a president who steps out of line, they can exert control over future presidents, and no president since Kennedy has gone so directly against the wishes of the intelligence community. Furthermore, following the failure of The Bay of Pigs, Kennedy became somewhat more inclined towards deescalation and coexistence with socialist countries and his firing of Dulles was only a part of that. Dulles' whole career was directly contrary to that approach, and he had had people killed over much lower stakes than that.

And how many people were involved with this? Because it sounds like every single CIA director (and probably a few deputies) since then would have to be "in on it". And not one person has said something, or accidentally dropped a receipt or a recording or any physical evidence whatsoever? Sort of like the Moon landing conspiracy.

Had tried to defect to the Soviets. Tried and failed.

He lived in Minsk for three years working at an electronics factory. He wasn't booted out by the Soviets, he returned to the US of his own will. But why is his failure to defect important for you to dispute? Surely its completely immaterial? How would him being a communist affect the narrative?

"I am starting to reconsider my desire about staying [in the USSR]. The work is drab, the money I get has nowhere to be spent. No nightclubs or bowling alleys, no places of recreation except the trade union dances. I have had enough."

Ironically quoting something that disproves your assertion above that he hadn't defected.

Allegedly. If there had been proof of that, he wouldn't have been walking free.

The bullet was eventually linked to a gun Oswald owned and Mrs Oswald testified that he did it, but this didn't come out until later.

No. For years I fully accepted the official story and wrote off alternatives as conspiracy theories, without looking into it. I changed my mind because I became aware of actual reasons to be suspicious, such as the breach in custody of the bullet and the conflict of interest with Dulles. The evidence is extremely shaky, which is very much consistent with the idea of a cover up. Before becoming aware of that evidence, I was willing to accept the official narrative.

No investigation is perfect and the more plausible explanation is mistakes happen. In order for it not to be a mistake, it has to be part of a chain of deliberate events each with its own probability of being true and each with its own chance of going wrong. So we have to deny the possibility that a single mistake is the plausible explanation in order to allow us to believe that the very implausible event chain (ongoing apparently) of hundreds of possibilities all compounding was executed flawlessly, is true.

That's why it's stupid. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise so please don't take my points above as worthy of responding to, I just wanted to tease out where the cognitive leap was.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

He planned the coups in Iran, Guatemala and Cuba but those didn’t involve any assassinations. Is Dulles being an assassin part of the conspiracy as well? No evidence seems to exist.

That's a joke, surely. You can't possibly be that ignorant of history.

And how many people were involved with this? Because it sounds like every single CIA director (and probably a few deputies) since then would have to be “in on it”. And not one person has said something, or accidentally dropped a receipt or a recording or any physical evidence whatsoever?

Wow, it's so shocking that the organization that's in charge of espionage would not accidentally drop major incriminating evidence against themselves. Clearly this proves I'm wrong.

Wait a minute though, the CIA has records on the Kennedy assassination that have, to date, not been declassified, and they've somehow managed to avoid leaking them to the public. How many people are involved in maintaining that classified information? Are you really telling me that not one person has said something, or accidentally dropped those records directly in front of a journalist? Clearly, the only conclusion is that those classified documents don't actually exist. Or... maybe the CIA is capable of keeping secrets, you know, like, the thing that it's their job to do?

Sort of like the Moon landing conspiracy.

The moon landing conspiracy can easily be disproved scientifically through available evidence, it is not comparable.

The bullet was eventually linked to a gun Oswald owned and Mrs Oswald testified that he did it, but this didn’t come out until later.

No, the bullet was shown to have come from the same type of gun that he owned, not the specific one. The evidence is still circumstantial.

Regardless, this doesn't prove anything.

No investigation is perfect and the more plausible explanation is mistakes happen. In order for it not to be a mistake, it has to be part of a chain of deliberate events each with its own probability of being true and each with its own chance of going wrong. So we have to deny the possibility that a single mistake is the plausible explanation in order to allow us to believe that the very implausible event chain (ongoing apparently) of hundreds of possibilities all compounding was executed flawlessly, is true.

There's a lot more than one single mistake. If you actually look into the evidence, you'll see that.

My narrative is not a "very implausible event chain." You haven't established even a single link in that chain that would be "very implausible."

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Is it because they're not really smart and they try to learn things from youtube rather than reading?

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What if I read the transcript in book form?

You're attacking the medium rather than the content. You can learn things from video just as you can a lecture.

Books aren't special. And they can be very wrong too.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

You can learn things from video just as you can a lecture.

So...

You think people walk into lectures completely unprepared, listen for 25 minute, and walk out and they magically have learned stuff?

Maybe you're just still in highschool, or never took a serious class in college.

How it works is:

Do the reading.
Attend the lecture while taking notes.
Review the notes
Then later, after doing this with different topics, reviewing the same information again.

Books aren’t special. And they can be very wrong too.

There's a lot bigger barrier of entry, compared to uploading a video to fucking YouTube.

You know what's crazier? There's still a shit ton more reasons, but I already know that even if you have managed to read this far, you can't remember the 1-4 steps without looking back up.

Reading let's you do that, quickly scan the text for what you want and referring to it.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

Maybe you’re just still in highschool, or never took a serious class in college.

Yeah, I hope you're not expecting a response with a tone like that. Bye

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

lose the shitty disrespectful attitude or you will be banned in the future.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not a bad guess. The moving picture medium has been around for a while though and complements the written word, rather than supplant it, as a tool for learning.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You want to learn how to get a garbage disposal unstuck?

Watch a YouTube video.

You want to learn to learn about psychological concepts in 25 minutes by watching a video?

Cool, it won't ever work but I respect your wishes.

But no smart person would believe just watching a quick video is actually learning anything more advanced then: there's a place for an Allen key under the disposal

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You want to learn to learn about psychological concepts in 25 minutes by watching a video? Cool, it won't ever work but I respect your wishes.

It's an interview with an eminent scientist discussing some key ideas. No, you won't walk away with a comprehensive knowledge of the entire field, the format isn't designed for that.

But no smart person would believe just watching a quick video is actually learning anything more advanced then: there's a place for an Allen key under the disposal

So documentaries are garbage as well then? Anything using video as a medium? Do you attend lectures in person or do wait for the transcript?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Hold still and I'll go make a YouTube video for you.

I don't know why I thought you were going to get anything out of the written word.

Just wait right there and I'll scream some buzzwords into a microphone for you, and tell you that you're smarter than everyone. Because you may be able to remember some of those buzzwords, but not what they actually mean.

Disruption! Synergy! The Singularity!

Now hold still for 7 minutes of ads!

Skeptic