Does it require intelligence to be a skeptic?

[Axxman300]

A witch!!! BURN!!

I had read all the books going back to the 1960s, and I noticed a significant pattern change. All the way through the early 1980s, UFOs landed. UFOs had landing gear, and left "scorch marks". Not just in North America, but globally. And then for some reason they just started hovering over the ground, no longer using landing gear.

I wondered why. Seemed like a huge change. I suggested that maybe people's imaginations had evolved from the 1950s movies, where the alien spaceships landed, to the 1970-1990s movies where they floated (thanks to improved special effects).

Another question that cost me any popularity was why none of the aliens ever drop anything, or left garbage behind? Just look at the stuff left in the Antarctic from every expedition, and look at the stuff we left on the moon.

Nobody in the UFO group was that open-minded.

 

[Darat]

I had read all the books going back to the 1960s, and I noticed a significant pattern change. All the way through the early 1980s, UFOs landed. UFOs had landing gear, and left "scorch marks". Not just in North America, but globally. And then for some reason they just started hovering over the ground, no longer using landing gear.

I wondered why. Seemed like a huge change. I suggested that maybe people's imaginations had evolved from the 1950s movies, where the alien spaceships landed, to the 1970-1990s movies where they floated (thanks to improved special effects).

Another question that cost me any popularity was why none of the aliens ever drop anything, or left garbage behind? Just look at the stuff left in the Antarctic from every expedition, and look at the stuff we left on the moon.

Nobody in the UFO group was that open-minded.

It's the same as to what the aliens look like - there's a graphic that charts the evolution of the aliens over the decades I'll see if I can find it online.

 

[Steve]

No it isn't. That's just knowledge.

Starting to realize that those who claim skepticism requires no intelligence are likely correct. Ample evidence in this very thread.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't think you need enormous intellect, or intelligence about everything to do an intelligent thing, but more or less by definition doing something intelligent is not a stupid act. So yes, I think it requires at least a modicum, at least occasionally, of intelligence to approach an issue intelligently, but I also think saying so is not saying very much.

My view is that to be a good sceptic requires a number of attributes:

1) A threshold level of innate intelligence (prob an IQ and EQ over around 120)

2) A high capacity for watching, listening, touching, hearing and learning

3) Parenting from a young age which stimulates & encourages (2) above

4) A good general primary & secondary education, including a reasonable level of proficiency in both arts and sciences (a tertiary and quaternary education is better still)

5) Some level of education/learning/training in critical thinking techniques

6) A natural curiosity in one's daily life

7) A willingness to observe and absorb information & opinion and to be able to integrate these into an overall "picture of the universe"

8) Above-average communication skills

9) A constant open mind, free of reactionary thinking or preconceived/fixed beliefs


That about covers it

 

[bruto]

I always thought it a bit odd that though we need elaborate space suits to go anywhere, aliens don't.

In real life it would be "what did the aliens look like?" "I don't know, but they had these really weird helmets."

 

[LondonJohn]

Starting to realize that those who claim skepticism requires no intelligence are likely correct. Ample evidence in this very thread.

LOL

I've lost track (genuinely) of the number of times I've observed - with good reason - that there seem to be quite a few people on these sorts of forums who'd like to think they're truly sceptical, and who somehow appear to believe that simply participating on a sceptics' forum somehow magically imbues (and validates) them with sceptical skills.

In an ideal (but somewhat creepy and weird ) world, people would be required to provide evidence of critical thinking and scepticism before they were allowed to participate in these sorts of forums......

 

[MBDK]

My view is that to be a good sceptic requires a number of attributes:

A decent list, but IMHO, there are only two very basic ones:

1) A modicum of intelligence, insomuch as they have the ability to comprehend and learn.

2) They are reasonable.


Everything else is window dressing.

 

[LondonJohn]

A decent list, but IMHO, there are only two very basic ones:

1) A modicum of intelligence, insomuch as they have the ability to comprehend and learn.

2) They are reasonable.


Everything else is window dressing.

I suppose it depends on one's perspective and one's definition of "sceptic". I totally agree that the two qualities you list will equip someone to engage in reasoned, intelligent debate*. But I suppose I was thinking about a higher level.

And don't forget that back in ancient Greece - arguably where scepticism truly developed as a concept - people had to study under the masters at the Academy for many years until they could call themselves proficient.


* Although the two qualities you list might reasonably be present in people who are antivaxxers, climate change deniers, or 9/11 Truthers. Which is where I'd argue that many of my additional listed qualities might effectively weed out such people.

 

[novaphile]

I suppose it depends on one's perspective and one's definition of "sceptic". I totally agree that the two qualities you list will equip someone to engage in reasoned, intelligent debate*. But I suppose I was thinking about a higher level.

And don't forget that back in ancient Greece - arguably where scepticism truly developed as a concept - people had to study under the masters at the Academy for many years until they could call themselves proficient.


* Although the two qualities you list might reasonably be present in people who are antivaxxers, climate change deniers, or 9/11 Truthers. Which is where I'd argue that many of my additional listed qualities might effectively weed out such people.

And sadly, the philosophical skeptics didn't believe anything existed, and tended to feature highly on the 'stupid deaths' scale for doing things like throwing themselves in front of chariots to prove that the chariots and horses didn't exist.

 

[ShadowSot]

I don't think so. I don't consider myself particularly intelligent at all but I'm a decent skeptic.

 

[MBDK]

* Although the two qualities you list might reasonably be present in people who are antivaxxers, climate change deniers, or 9/11 Truthers. Which is where I'd argue that many of my additional listed qualities might effectively weed out such people.

My position is that such people are NOT reasonable, as ignoring mountains of evidence to promote cherry-picked snippets and out-of-context statements/data in support of an alternative view have no affiliation with what anyone should consider as a reasonable mind-set.

 

[LondonJohn]

My position is that such people are NOT reasonable, as ignoring mountains of evidence to promote cherry-picked snippets and out-of-context statements/data in support of an alternative view have no affiliation with what anyone should consider as a reasonable mind-set.

Yes, but your definition of "reasonable" more-or-less demands that the person has - either implicitly or explicitly - been trained in the art/skill of assessing the available evidence, having an accurate worldview, and making evidence-based arguments/conclusion. It's not something that most (maybe any) people are just born with.

And it's these training/learning processes, plus some self-improvement processes, that I believe are absolutely necessary if one is to become a good (effective, thoughtful, evidence-based) sceptic. This in turn is precisely what is driving most of the other bullet points in my list.

 

[Vixen]

The Good Sceptic

Whilst having a good education and being bright might well indeed facilitate the powers of scepticism, I don't think they are the cause of it nor necessarily even give rise to a sceptical nature. I tend to agree with Axxman that some people have a well-developed BS detector which is not altogether contingent on their being clever or wealthy.
Likewise, there are many people who consider themselves a sceptic yet in reality, only think they are. What happens is, they know the buzzwords, such as 'psychic' and 'medium', equals "woo" but when one scratches the surface, it becomes apparent they've never actually really thought about it; they are simply repeating the given mantra. I say this because the same aforementioned people are astonished to hear that psychotherapy is also woo*. As psychotherapy is socially acceptable and claiming to be a psychic is not, it has never crossed their mind to actually question their assumption that they know what woo is. However, the idea that little boys wanting to kill their fathers and sleep with their mothers, whilst little girls have penis envy and suffer from hysteria has never been scientifically proven either and this, together with the concepts of ego, id, superego, thanatos and libido (such as is the school of Freudian thought) is just as much woo-based as communicating with dead spirits or astrology, palmistry, numerology or tarot reading. Ask any scientifically-trained psychologist if this astonishes you. The true sceptic IMV, weighs up each case on their own merits; in many cases we can dismiss the claim almost immediately. In the case of conspiracy theories, because intelligence agencies are so secretive - often with documents locked up for 75 years - then this arouses people's curiosity as to what exactly is being hidden. Take UFO's for example. Absolutely no disrespect to anyone but wondering why aliens never seem to wear space suits or leave behind debris is a 12-year-old's level of scepticism. Think about it. The CIA have taken the issue of UFO sightings seriously. So if these highly intelligent, well-educated guys are allowed to watch out for UFO's, why not anyone else? Whilst I don't believe there are little green men from Mars or spaceships floating around á la IT-call-home, I did once have a desire to visit Joshua Tree Desert at night to chill out with friends to watch out for the famed UFO's in that region, more as an interesting watching of the skies, such as looking out for the northern lights or Orion's Belt. When people say 'UFO', this is likely to be due to some kind of easily explicable phenomenon, such as electromagnetic activity or meteor showers or some such. Knee-jerk head shaking is not scepticism, it is cynicism.

As for the issue a poster mentioned earlier about how his two favourite 'smartest guys I ever met' were both non-atheists, can I just say here that I don't think being an atheist or non-atheist defines a 'true sceptic'. Often, a person's religious affiliation is just an affirmation of their cultural roots and separate from their powers of scepticism. I have known quite a few atheists who are atheist because they were brought up as atheist so really not that different from someone identifying as Muslim, Christian or Jewish because that is their background and not a reflection on their powers of scepticism.

So, to sum up then, scepticism is more than a knee-jerk response of shouting 'rubbish' mindlessly at any unconventional claim (read: not yet approved by Murdoch) like uncouth teenagers yelling abuse at every crap pop song on TOTP, just because a high proportion absolutely are, and because 'Uri Geller'. So someone being well-educated and intelligent, doesn't make them a true sceptic, just because they read Private Eye and watch HIGNIFY, occasionally lobbying brickbats at dodgy politicians; and yet at the same time are perfectly happy with the status quo and one's position in it.

That is not to say I think scepticism cannot be trained. I would say training of the sort police, detectives, barristers and official examiners have, being suspicious of everything, being observant, having a good BS detector, knowing how to place yourself in another's shoes and understanding their M.O. and what makes them tick, asking the right questions, making the right suggestions and being two steps ahead, is what makes for a good sceptic.


*That's not to say that counselling of itself - offloading one's troubles onto a sympathetic ear - is not effective as a form of therapy.

 

[GlennB]

The Good Sceptic

<word barrage deleted>

Sceptics tend to value brevity and, also, the value of paragraph breaks.

 

[Apathia]

My view is that to be a good sceptic requires a number of attributes:

1) A threshold level of innate intelligence (prob an IQ and EQ over around 120)

2) A high capacity for watching, listening, touching, hearing and learning

3) Parenting from a young age which stimulates & encourages (2) above

4) A good general primary & secondary education, including a reasonable level of proficiency in both arts and sciences (a tertiary and quaternary education is better still)

5) Some level of education/learning/training in critical thinking techniques

6) A natural curiosity in one's daily life

7) A willingness to observe and absorb information & opinion and to be able to integrate these into an overall "picture of the universe"

8) Above-average communication skills

9) A constant open mind, free of reactionary thinking or preconceived/fixed beliefs


That about covers it

For the "Good Skeptic" that practices Critical Thinking, I'd add self examination and self awareness.
As Richard Feynman once said, "the person easiest to fool is yourself."
You must be able to question your own assumptions and why some particular matter may especially evoke a skeptical reaction, while another may be ignored.

Beliefs are preferential, and we do a lot of rationalizing to hold onto them.
Beliefs we are culturally accustomed to seem more plausible to even the skeptic eye, and are often held unconsciously.

Our skeptic eye may take positions reactively in order to distance ourselves from overt woo-woo. For example there was a person on this board years back who was highly skeptical of Quantum Theory. He wanted a return to the woo-less ground of Newtonian Physics. This was because he didn't want to give any possible quarter to the "Consciousness" woo-woo of Depak Chopra, et al. Another may insist there is no evidence of an historical Jesus, in the end to absolutely dismiss all Christianity.

Critical Thinking isn't a posturing and identifying oneself as a "Skeptic." It's simply "Right Thinking" (If a can cockroach a little Buddhism, or some "Know Thyself," if you can better stomach Stoicism).

 

[MBDK]

Yes, but your definition of "reasonable" more-or-less demands that the person has - either implicitly or explicitly - been trained in the art/skill of assessing the available evidence, having an accurate worldview, and making evidence-based arguments/conclusion. It's not something that most (maybe any) people are just born with.

And it's these training/learning processes, plus some self-improvement processes, that I believe are absolutely necessary if one is to become a good (effective, thoughtful, evidence-based) sceptic. This in turn is precisely what is driving most of the other bullet points in my list.

No demand necessary. I don't deny the items in your post and previous list help, but they are still mostly window dressing, as most of them are either things a reasonable person does, or things that can also be done by a bad skeptic, who remains unreasonable.

A reasonable person knows when they are out of their depth on a subject, and either acknowledges so, or makes the effort to study it to the point they can make an informed conclusion. You can't bullet point every topic with which a person should be educated in in order to be a good skeptic. There are no academic and/or upbringing criteria that guarantees a good or bad skeptic. It is all based on their reasonable uses of their knowledge AND their reasonable recognition of their limitations.


Now, if you are trying to identify an environment ripe for producing a person with good skeptical qualities in relatable ways, then your list does offer that setting, but again, is not entirely prerequisite for just being a good skeptic.

 

[Pixel42]

I'd say that the willingness to acquire knowledge and be corrected by it is a more important prerequisite than intelligence for a sceptic. I've known a few pretty intelligent people who were wrong about a lot of things because they never bothered to properly inform themselves, assuming that their intuition and subjective experiences were sufficient to reach reliable conclusions. They didn't know about cognitive biases, so they didn't know they needed to take them into account.

 

[xterra]

For reasons that aren't important here, I have been rereading some of the old Million Dollar Challenge threads. Of particular relevance here, I think, is the one started by Cassidy.*

Despite being given example after example of pareidolia, Cassidy was adamant about refusing to even look at the possibility that she was not in contact with spirits.


*A reminder that Cassidy is still a member of ISF, so all the rules apply.

 

[dann]

I think it does. You need to know things about the topic in order to have skepticism about it. Smart people make the best skeptics.

It doesn't require much intelligence to become an ISF member.

 

[dann]

I worked as a salesman in a high-end toy store for 14 years. I found my sales-manipulation skills worked better on educated people than on "Joe Sixpack". Smart people are often easier to deceive than less-smart people because, because they often don't have good BS filters. Less-than-smart people usually have over-developed BS filters that require creativity to manipulate.

Can you be more specific? What did you tell your potential customers that was believed by smart people but not by "Joe Sixpack"?

 

[dann]

So, come teenage years, there is a light bulb moment, 'Hey, they lied to me. Father Christmas isn't real. England isn't the only country in the world. Superman is ridiculous, with his "truth, justice and the American way", as he flies through the air eliminating the baddies.'

I discovered that Santa wasn't real when I was three or four. His beard was obviously fake. I became suspicious when I noticed that his face was much too young for his beard to have turned white, and a closer inspection revealed the elastic band fastening it to his ears.

It's possible that I might have believed in Santa for a few more years if they hadn't hired somebody too young to play the role in a convincing way, but I pity children who don't have the "light bulb moment" until their teenage years.

 

[dann]

Another question that cost me any popularity was why none of the aliens ever drop anything, or left garbage behind? Just look at the stuff left in the Antarctic from every expedition, and look at the stuff we left on the moon.

You can't blame the aliens for being environmentalists!
Unless they've come to invade us, they always blame us for the way we abuse Earth and each other.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Another question that cost me any popularity was why none of the aliens ever drop anything, or left garbage behind? Just look at the stuff left in the Antarctic from every expedition, and look at the stuff we left on the moon.

Nobody in the UFO group was that open-minded.

There is a good little novel from Murry Leister that makes use of that idea and it has the heroes looking through the rubbish left behind by a visiting spaceship, which reveals dark secrets: The Greks Bring Gifts

 

[ahhell]

Starting to realize that those who claim skepticism requires no intelligence are likely correct. Ample evidence in this very thread.

Certainly doesn't take any to claim to be a skeptic. Look at me.

 

[Axxman300]

Can you be more specific? What did you tell your potential customers that was believed by smart people but not by "Joe Sixpack"?

Fair question.

The LGB G-Scale train is indoor-outdoor and all-weather. The slower set refused to believe you could run a model railroad in the rain or snow. We had a hardcore demo too. The solid brass rails were powered by low-voltage DC current. We'd poor a glass of water on them, and put out hands on the tracks while the train continued to run. They still didn't believe it was safe, even after a few of the brave ones placed their hand on the wet tracks.

And the trains were tough. We had a roof from the passenger car included in the starter set that we'd bang like a hammer on the counter to demonstrate how solid the BASF designed plastic was against abuse. The slower folks would counter with a list of "what ifs". LGB used to bring in an elephant for the Nuremberg Toy Show to walk on their tracks to demonstrate how strong they were. We'd show them that picture, and we'd show them photos taken by our customers of cars parked on the LGB tracks. The slow folks still balked.

There was nothing we could physically demonstrate which would change their mind about the perceived quality.

This was the 1980s and 1990s. Today you can find hundreds of garden railway videos on Youtube.

 

[ahhell]

I had read all the books going back to the 1960s, and I noticed a significant pattern change. All the way through the early 1980s, UFOs landed. UFOs had landing gear, and left "scorch marks". Not just in North America, but globally. And then for some reason they just started hovering over the ground, no longer using landing gear.

I wondered why. Seemed like a huge change. I suggested that maybe people's imaginations had evolved from the 1950s movies, where the alien spaceships landed, to the 1970-1990s movies where they floated (thanks to improved special effects).

Another question that cost me any popularity was why none of the aliens ever drop anything, or left garbage behind? Just look at the stuff left in the Antarctic from every expedition, and look at the stuff we left on the moon.

Nobody in the UFO group was that open-minded.

Tangent but, I wonder what the venn diagram of moon landing hoax believers and Alien visitation believers looks like. I'm sure its none zero overlap but they are kind of contradictory beliefs aren't they?

 

[dann]

The LGB G-Scale train is indoor-outdoor and all-weather.

When I was a kid, I had Märklin. It was pretty solid, but it never occurred to me to take it outside, pour water on it or have elephants walk on the tracks.

 

[Axxman300]

When I was a kid, I had Märklin. It was pretty solid, but it never occurred to me to take it outside, pour water on it or have elephants walk on the tracks.

Märklin 1-Gauge is not indoor-outdoor. That would have been expensive. Their HO and Z-gauge trains are fantastic, but their HO was hard to sell due to it being proprietary. And American model train buffs tend to be hands-on, kit-bashing types. I loved their tracks and track systems.

 

[novaphile]

Critical thinking can definitely be taught, but I think the stuff about people being willing to research is a little off the track.

Believers in alternate reality do a lot of research, but do not understand that the material they are reading is garbage.

Source reliability is much more important, and probably harder to teach, especially once someone has gone down the 'big' hole (i.e. big pharma, military-industrial complex, big media etc.)

 

[JayUtah]

Tangent but, I wonder what the venn diagram of moon landing hoax believers and Alien visitation believers looks like. I'm sure its none zero overlap but they are kind of contradictory beliefs aren't they?

Back in the day, there was one fairly notable guy I talked to whose position was literally, "The astronauts did not actually go to the Moon. But while they were there, they found evidence of alien visitation." I can't remember his name, but that's probably for the best. It doesn't take much to be properly skeptical of that claim.

 

[Beerina]

Here's the flip-side to this statement:

I worked as a salesman in a high-end toy store for 14 years. I found my sales-manipulation skills worked better on educated people than on "Joe Sixpack". Smart people are often easier to deceive than less-smart people because, because they often don't have good BS filters. Less-than-smart people usually have over-developed BS filters that require creativity to manipulate.

Where you are right, in your perception of the slower set, is that these over-developed BS filters take the place of reason, and knowledge. This leaves them immune to facts. Their information must travel through a narrow path of "trusted" sources, and this path does not extend into deep or serious thinking skills.

But the fact is that smart-people can be manipulated into believing crazy things with the right buzzwords, presented in the right format, by sources who appeal to their intellectual egos. A prime example of this is Robert Kennedy Jr. A highly educated man who is deep in the woo. In the same way the less-smart people are obtuse to reason, his ego and intellect blind him from basic, big-picture facts.

IMO, a good skeptic frequently questions their own intelligence more than anything else.

We assume fooled intelligent researchers are making an honest attempt at testing, and are not just playing along to raise the value of their own coin.

 

[Beerina]

Back in the day, there was one fairly notable guy I talked to whose position was literally, "The astronauts did not actually go to the Moon. But while they were there, they found evidence of alien visitation." I can't remember his name, but that's probably for the best. It doesn't take much to be properly skeptical of that claim.

Well, Neil Armstrong discovered a giant robot space ship, that dominated secret government efforts ever since. At least until a strange rectangular artifact was discovered well over 20 years ago.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Fair question.

The LGB G-Scale train is indoor-outdoor and all-weather. The slower set refused to believe you could run a model railroad in the rain or snow.

Is that really what they refused to believe, or was it just that they were skeptical of a salesman's spiel?

We'd poor a glass of water on them, and put out hands on the tracks while the train continued to run. They still didn't believe it was safe, even after a few of the brave ones placed their hand on the wet tracks.

How does putting your hands on the tracks prove the insulation and clearance distances on the mains transformer are safe?

Few people have the knowledge and understanding of electricity to know whether an electrical condition is safe or not. To make matters worse they are regularly misinformed by the media. How many movies have you seen where someone gets electrocuted by a 12 V battery connected to a pool of water?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Nobody in the UFO group was that open-minded.

You don't understand. People don't join UFO groups to critically examine the subject. They are there to put a little magic in their lives. They don't want to find out the truth about UFOs, they want a fantasy.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I wonder what the venn diagram of moon landing hoax believers and Alien visitation believers looks like. I'm sure its none zero overlap but they are kind of contradictory beliefs aren't they?

Not at all. You see, we didn't go to the Moon because we didn't have to. NASA just asked some aliens to go there and pretend to be astronauts. Much cheaper than doing it ourselves!

But why would someone believe both in aliens and the Moon hoax? Because they are both 'beliefs' that make their lives a bit less dreary. Some people deliberately hold contrary 'beliefs' just to assert their individuality. This is why they are immune to logic and evidence - they don't want to know the truth.

 

[varwoche]

I would disagree. First off, "knowing things" is not synonymous with being intelligent. Moreover, skepticism is more about knowing how to assess the reliability of information. I don't know all that much about sub-atomic particle physics, but I can still reach "skeptically sound" conclusions about cold fusion.

Skepticism is a process, not an intelligence measure.

True. But skepticism is a thought process.

 

[dann]

Back in the day, there was one fairly notable guy I talked to whose position was literally, "The astronauts did not actually go to the Moon. But while they were there, they found evidence of alien visitation." I can't remember his name, but that's probably for the best. It doesn't take much to be properly skeptical of that claim.

A prominent Targeted Individual, Len Ber, claims that the "High power pulsed microwave weapon" that he imagines he's being attacked with leaves "markings on the glass closet door" at his residence.

When I asked him, "Why assume that it was caused by microwaves?! Think , not or ," he answered:

Because this is where I get my directed energy attacks. My diagnosis is made by the dr Hoffer one confirmed by Dr Giordano.

Just two months ago, he claimed that

It does happen in different places, and at this point anywhere. I travel to different states or a hotel. You rent an apartment. I thought maybe it would be easier there. But no, anywhere I go, it reaches me out.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14022521#post14022521

He considers himself to be "scientifically minded" and "a man of evidence."

 

[dann]

Source reliability is much more important, and probably harder to teach, especially once someone has gone down the 'big' hole (i.e. big pharma, military-industrial complex, big media etc.)

Source reliability is good, but how do you know if sources are reliable or not? If you believe that Big Pharma, the DoD and the mainstream media are always reliable, I wouldn't call you a skeptic.
For a couple of years, we have been told by the CIA and mainstream media that a number of U.S. spies and diplomats were victims of directed-energy-weapon attacks. Very recently, we were told by the same agency and media that they weren't. (The DoD still hasn't entirely given up hope that they were.)

Sometimes, it takes a lot of effort to find out when sources are reliable and when they aren't. What seems to be consistent or inconsistent in the explanations and alleged facts we are presented with and what doesn't? For a couple of years, we were actually presented with a reason for going to wage war that turned out not be true.
And it's far from the first time this has happened.

Things like the alleged fake moon landing are fairly innocuous in comparison to this.

Look at the number of lives that have been lost to the pandemic because TPTB think it's cheaper to ignore (= tell people to 'learn to live with') the virus than to follow the example of countries that base their pandemic strategies on science instead of ideology. It takes quite an effort to even become aware that such countries exist. It's not as if it's something the media wants to tell us about.

 

[dann]

You don't understand. People don't join UFO groups to critically examine the subject. They are there to put a little magic in their lives. They don't want to find out the truth about UFOs, they want a fantasy.

But it's more than that. If you just want a fantasy, you can watch a Disney movie. If you look at communities like QAnon, it is also about being in on something significant, of being the member of a kind of elite, a group of people who (imagine that they) know something that ordinary people don't. It's about being more than mere sheeple.

The irony being that it's what they themselves are while actively 'doing their own research'.

It is not unlike being a member of communities like the Masons or other secret societies. It makes you feel powerful, in charge. An ordinary fantasy doesn't give you that feeling of being important, even if the importance is only imaginary and helps you remain sheeple - with the exception of the (relatively) few conspiracy nuts who decide to seize the day, to live out the fantasy to the fullest and attack the Capitol.

 

[Axxman300]

Is that really what they refused to believe, or was it just that they were skeptical of a salesman's spiel?

I was literally banging the roof of a $125 passenger car against the counter.

How does putting your hands on the tracks prove the insulation and clearance distances on the mains transformer are safe?

You pour water onto the tracks and place one or both hands on that spot. And then don't die. There's no shock because it's low-voltage DC. The opposite demonstration would be to unplug your old Lionel AC-powered transformer, and touch the prongs of the plug (this was my introduction to electrical shock when I was four, not recommended).

Few people have the knowledge and understanding of electricity to know whether an electrical condition is safe or not. To make matters worse they are regularly misinformed by the media. How many movies have you seen where someone gets electrocuted by a 12 V battery connected to a pool of water?

They didn't need to know that stuff. They just needed to know they could put their train out in the backyard, even if they lived in Vermont.