Well, in my view, it boils down to intellectual cowardice. Let me explain.
Firstly, there is a thing called "observer bias". This basically refers to seeing things one expects to, or interpreting data from a very limited point of view (ironic, to think that many of the conspiracy theorists about "9/11" are actually guilty of the same intellectual errors that the intelligence services were). I've come across this throughout my life, and it has always been a problem - only the extent varies. It is one of the underlying problems of many forms of bigotry, for instance, which makes it directly responsible for appalling abuses - including murder, and has been responsible for crippling many people's life choices when parents or busybody adults step in to "enlighten" and only stuff the situation up.
In the case of someone who is just developing psychically, they - or, perhaps more accurately, their brain - chooses to interpret their sensations in ways that are familiar - hence, a highly evolved non-physical being "must" be an angel, because they have no other way of describing it. It would be more honest to say "highly evolved non-physical being", but people tend to go with what they are familiar with. (This, incidentally, given the overwhelmingly neochristian associations of the term in many Western societies, makes the use of that term a problem for those who have experienced abuse at the hands of the neochristian churches, or members of groups that the neochristian churches have problems with - such as LGBTIQ people, or Pagans.)
Next, we have the desire to be safe at least, and preferably be part of a group. This very human desire has led to problems in some LGBTIQ communities, where some people want to show that they are basically part of the social mainstream, except for one down played difference - and hence we have gays and lesbians who are politically conservative, or trans people who adhere to social stereotypes. As an example from another community, some migrants and even refugees try to be more mainstream than the mainstream - I'm thinking of a taxi driver here who was in such a category, and yet was vehemently against accepting boat people.
That sort of reaction is based on fear. It does NOT mean the views / intellectual position being adopted are correct. If I use the example of allegedly seeing angels or Jesus, it is socially safer to use a term that the greater powers in society, such as neochristianity, approve of - and that can lead to an enhanced sense of belonging by leading to encouragement/acceptance/friendship from the mainstream. (In the past, it was probably also physically safer.)
If I boil all that down, adopting a term or viewpoint out of fear of being isolated, or because of unexamined bias, is not only intellectually faulty, it is unspiritual and immature. In fact, it is cowardice - mostly intellectual, but also social and personal, as the fear of being alone or isolated is a major crippling factor for many people (not, however, some conspiracy theorists - who, while they may lack intellectual courage, do not lack personal/social courage, as they stick to their positions despite the costs).
In my view, if I'm describing or discussing people who make these mistakes, I can either give the long-winded explanations above, or I can "cut to the chase", so to speak, and describe it as what I consider it is: intellectual cowardice - it is people choosing, on some level (most probably not conscious), to interpret or describe their experiences in a way that is "safe", choosing safety over truth.
Now, I'd like to move on to the problem of conspiracy theories.
I've always been dubious about conspiracy theories. I've known people who held to those, and some of the them were truly nutters - like the woman I knew a few decades ago who believed the moon landings were faked. I didn't have any sense that she strongly felt that: it was more a case of mild incredulity combined with wanting to have a characteristic that would set her apart - and that's probably the key for me: the lack of intellectual rigour that many of these people have. That is part of why I consider it so essential for children to be taught Brendan Myers' "Clear and Present Thinking", and to generally find the balance point between scepticism and gullibility.
Some matters that seem to be conspiracy theories are later found to be true - for instance, those who have been crying wolf over FIFA could possibly have been viewed as a conspiracy theory, but now the facts have shown the allegations were true.
Others, such as the people who still believe the Earth is flat are clearly wrong (in my view :) - which is based on as objective assessment of the facts as I can make), and never will be right.
What is the difference?
Facts, and clear thinking.
Conspiracy theories are largely built around what the legal profession would describe as circumstantial evidence: it is not the equivalent of "facts" determined by forensic science (which are largely over-rated by members of the public). Now, there is a whole range of facts that mainstream science dismisses without proper investigation, and that is anything related to psychism or mediumship. However, in my opinion, there is adequate evidence supporting the existence of psychism and mediumship (including the problems that can and do happen with those as well - don't discount what the sceptics say: it is important to avoid being gullible). For more on this, refer to Victor Zammit's website, here, "Briefing for the Landing on Planet Earth" by Stuart Holroyd, and no doubt many other websites and sources. (And I consider many "skeptics" - particularly those I encounter in everyday life - are guilty of bullying, as well as intellectual cowardice and dishonesty and the other matters I have touched on.)
Having got that out of the way, I have rarely felt that the conspiracy theorists I have met were dedicated to the truth: there was mostly (not in all cases!) some emotional flaw or need (remember to do your shadow work!) that was being met by their adherence to their position - just as many "skeptics" also are comforted by their emotional allegiance to their ideology. In both groups, there are exceptions - for instance, here - but that doesn't excuse or justify the problems that go with both sides.
Now, I have come across a few articles where people look at the problem of conspiracy theories from the point of view of intellectual thinking style, in my words:
- http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/intellectual-character-of-conspiracy-theorists/;
- http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/conspiracy_theory_psychology_people_who_claim_to_know_the_truth_about_jfk.html;
- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-believe-conspiracy-theoies/.
Oftentimes, no - but it is when it stops other people being all that they can be, or robs resources from worthy causes, then I become concerned.
In the case of faked moon landing or flat earth conspiracy theories, I don't think it matters - considerations of funding and survival (there is an argument that Gaea promoted the evolution of a species which could leave the planet to enable survival of the next "planet killing" asteroid or super-volcano) are far more important than whether or not the moon landings happened. In many cases, it harms the advocate more than anyone else (for instance, there are a couple of ET contact groups here in Australia that I have considered going along to, to see what they're like, but they've failed on intellectual rigour because they consider the UN is an attempt to impose a bad form of world government - I am all in favour of a world government, if it is a good form, incidentally - it might take care of many of the conflicts and the misallocation of food and other resources), and a post about the Exhibition Building and a fountain in the Carlton Gardens which alleged "Illuminati" and reptilian * symbols. The symbols were typical of that era, and what is termed a classical education! The "half reptile" people described were mer-people! How the hell can anyone not know what a mermaid or a merman are?
You don't do your case any good if you cannot get these sort of fundamentals right. If they had shown awareness of that, and then argued their case, it would have had more cogency and credibility.
From a personal point of the view, the greatest harm in that is that I also want to experience a sense of belongingness, and clearly, I have to keep searching.
* see about one third of the way through here, for an explanation of this term.
PS - if you're not familiar with a particular conspiracy theory, I would suggest you at least listen to them. To not do so is much intellectual cowardice as those who I have written about in this post. Also, people cannot effectively "de-bunk" a conspiracy theory unless they know how those who adhere to it think. For example, I have been planning on writing my version of a de-bunking of the hollow earth theory - largely because I think I know enough to do so, including having some familiarity with how those who adhere to that theory think. Incidentally, if a conspiracy theory is bunk, there will be, or it will be possible to prepare, an effective, calm, sensible rebuttal. If no-one has done so yet, well, maybe think about it all very carefully - in fact, why not MEDITATE on it ... Also, see here.
[2] Please
see here, here and my post "The
Death of Wikipedia" for the reasons
I now recommend caution when using Wikipedia. I'm also exploring use of h2g2,
although that doesn't appear to be as extensive (h2g2 is intended - rather
engagingly - to be the Earth edition of
"The
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy").
[3] I apologise for the formatting: it seems Blogger is
no longer as WYSIWYG as it used to be, and there are a lot of unwanted
changes to layout made upon publishing, so I often have to edit it immediately
after publishing to get the format as close to what I want as possible.
Love, light, hugs and blessings
(pronounced "new-MYTH-ear"; ... aka Bellatrix
Lux … aka Morinehtar … would-be drýicgan or maga
... )
My "blogiography" (list of all posts and guide as to how to best use this
site) is here, and my glossary/index is here.
I started this blog to cover karmic regression-rescue
(see here and here), and it grew ... See here for my group mind project, here and here for my "Pagans for Peace" project (and join me
for a few minutes at some time between 8 and 11 PM on Sunday, wherever you are,
to meditate-clear for peace), and here
for my bindrune kit-bag. I also strongly recommend
learning how to flame, ground
and shield, do alternate
nostril breathing, work
with colour, and see also here and be
flexible.
Tags: courage, cowardice, dishonesty, fear, integrity, intellectualism, intelligence, personal characteristics, socialisation, society,
First published: Sunnudagr, 7th June, 2015
Last edited (excluding fixing typo's
and other minor matters): Sunday, 7th June, 2015
