Thread: Simple Bayesian framework for thinking about conspiracy theories.

1/n (2/n) I'm taking it for granted that you are familiar with Bayes' Theorem. If not, I suggest it's well-worth looking into. Few equations are more useful in everyday life. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_…

OK, so yesterday we had a nice thread about crunchy conservatives and conspiritualists, and their tendency to buy in to global conspiracy theories. Today I'm going to float a rough draft taxonomy of the relevant neighborhood.

It will be wrong. And you will tell me how. First some rough characterizations of the main categories: New Age, Libertarian, TradCon, Anti-woke, and Economic Populist.

New Age Conservatives.

Traditional family values + anti-vax + organic food + homeopathy + crystals.

This has to be one of the fastest growing groups in the US, but I don't think they have a widely-used label yet. Oh, they're also really big on CBD oil, and are willing to ignore any THC that might tag along for the ride.

I despise both of the main political parties in the US, but I despise one more than the other. And this is why it's difficult to get people overly excited about a 3rd party in the US.

The gentle mockery of friends is primarily about group cohesion. So is the vicious mockery of a public enemy.

Those who mock together flock together. This is not a justification of mockery, just a first stab at explanation.

Mockery seems to be an honor-culture bonding ritual.

Most equivocations aren't planned. They result from semantic drift when people are defending two different generalizations (which often constitute the premises of a categorical syllogism).

E.g., Democrats are socialists, socialism is bad, therefore Democrats are bad. In order to defend "Democrats are socialists", your criteria for "socialism" tend to broaden, in order to ensnare more Democrats.

Biased Thinking (1/2)

If you like a theory, you ask: "Can I believe this, given the evidence?"

If you don't like a theory, you ask: "Must I believe this, given the evidence?" Biased Thinking (2/2)

If it's your out-group, you ask: "Can I stigmatize the whole group based on a few bad apples."

If it's your in-group, you ask: "Must the whole group be stigmatized because of these few bad apples?"

Dinesh is one of the worst actors in modern politics. He fans the flames of the very polarization that is tearing us apart.

I'm not a fan of cancel culture, but I can't help wondering if the world would be a better place if we were to #CancelThePolarizers

https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1175848457191510016

At the very least, we should stop rewarding them with our attention (which, irony of ironies, I am doing right now).

(THREAD) Three stages of ideological growth. The last stage can be fatal.

/1 The journey starts when you find an ideology that helps you interpret your experience and give meaning to your life. Often this is provided for you by parents and the communities of which they are a part. Sometimes you discover a compelling ideology later in life.

/2

1/ There are two main archetypes for reasoning in popular awareness. I wan't to make a case for a third. 2/ The first archetype is the Scientist. The archetypal scientist engages in argumentation in order to find more accurate models of the world.

1/ Common pattern in academic arguments:

"Your surface claim has some unsavory connotations/implications that you don't need to make. All the things you want can be had without making that claim. (unless you have some ulterior motives you haven't mentioned)." 2/ @danieldennett makes this move on the free will issue.

1/ Libertarianism and Social Justice for all (thread) 2/ Individual Liberty and Collective Justice are our main conflicting social values. Both values scale across various levels of social organization, from individual to global village, and, though not logically incompatible, are nearly always in practical conflict.