Inside the Truther Mind

[aggle-rithm]

Very often in the conspiracy theory section, JREFers become exasperated at the tendency of "truthers" to present contradictory evidence in support of their arguments. When asked, "How does this fit into your theory?", they reply, "I don't have a theory. I just want the truth!"

This, of course, creates a great deal of cognitive dissonance in the minds of rational thinkers. Unfortunately, truthers don't seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance at all. They seem to be perfectly happy to let conflicting ideas co-exist in their paranoid and twisted minds.

I have a theory on how they can do this. It has to do with how people organize beliefs into categories.

For a rational person, ideas are categorized according to how well they fit with previously existing ideas. Such a person may have a mental "bag" in which he/she places ideas about, say, World War II. When new information becomes available, it is put into the bag based on how well it fits with other ideas that are already in there. Ocassionally, it is necessary to clean house, pull out everything, rearrange it, and discard some of it to allow a new idea to "fit". This would be the case with a somewhat murky idea like "the Soviets were one of the Allies". Most of the time, however, if it doesn't fit, it is merely dismissed as being invalid. The idea that the Holocaust didn't really happen would be an example of this.

Now let's look at how truthers organize ideas. Like a rationalist, a truther puts ideas into a bag that defines a category of belief. However, a truther organizes beliefs not according to theories, but according to conclusions. Thus, if the conclusion is that the US government was behind 9/11, then the following two ideas are not in conflict:

1. Flight 93 did not really crash.
2. Flight 93 was shot down by US fighter planes.

A rationalist would say that these are mutually exclusive ideas, but a truther doesn't see it that way. To him, both ideas support the conclusion. They can't BOTH be true, of course, but it doesn't matter. The goal is to gather as much "overwhelming evidence" as possible to support the conclusion. Internal consistency is necessary ONLY if there is a theory...and the truthers don't have one! They have only a conclusion, and their belief is that if you gather mountains of "evidence", some of it has to be true, even if large portions cancel each other out.

If you read through the CT forums long enough, you will see that my theory has a lot of explanatory power, if nothing else. I think that part of the reason that we have such difficulty engaging in useful discussion with CTist's is that we have trouble imagining what it is like to conceptualize ideas this way. If you analyze the patterns of their posts, it will become clear that, however their minds work, they don't work like most of ours do.

On the other hand, it could be that they are all just trolls.

 

[Baylor]

On the other hand, it could be that they are all just trolls.

Bingo.

 

[drkitten]

Very often in the conspiracy theory section, JREFers become exasperated at the tendency of "truthers" to present contradictory evidence in support of their arguments. When asked, "How does this fit into your theory?", they reply, "I don't have a theory. I just want the truth!"

To be fair, this is a normal and even praiseworthy tendency when you have a set of beliefs that are in conflict. The appropriate thing to do is to take the firmest beliefs and look to see what conflicts with them (and throw that out).

I think it was Sherlock Holmes who said "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." If one knows, for whatever reason, that the official story is impossible, then there's nothing wrong with seeking out possible alternative stories, even if they conflict with each other. If I know that my dog was at the vet's that the time your flower bed was dug up, then I don't have to make sure that all my alternative explanations are consonant with each other.

Of course, if you're going to apply this, then it helps if you can actually demonstrate to the satisfaction of the onlookers that the official story is genuinely impossible. But this can be more challenging than it appears. You may not take my word that my dog was at the vet's, and you may not believe that my vet's kennel is genuinely escape-proof.

 

[aggle-rithm]

If one knows, for whatever reason, that the official story is impossible, then there's nothing wrong with seeking out possible alternative stories, even if they conflict with each other. If I know that my dog was at the vet's that the time your flower bed was dug up, then I don't have to make sure that all my alternative explanations are consonant with each other.

Yes, but they don't have alternate stories or explanations. They have only disjointed "facts" (which may or may not be true) that cast suspicion on the "official story". They avoid at all costs putting these facts together in any coherent way. In fact, one of their leaders (David Ray Griffin, if I'm not mistaken) has cautioned his followers to avoid even trying to speculate on what happened on 9/11.

Why? Just because the moment they hear themselves saying what they believe, they know immediately that it's all nonsense. There is no possible narrative that points to the US Government as the agent behind the attacks that does not sound like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic.

 

[JihadJane]

Funnily enough, the 911 Commission and the NIST reports also started with foregone conclusions.

Yes, but they don't have alternate stories or explanations. They have only disjointed "facts" (which may or may not be true) that cast suspicion on the "official story". They avoid at all costs putting these facts together in any coherent way. In fact, one of their leaders (David Ray Griffin, if I'm not mistaken) has cautioned his followers to avoid even trying to speculate on what happened on 9/11.

Why? Just because the moment they hear themselves saying what they believe, they know immediately that it's all nonsense. There is no possible narrative that points to the US Government as the agent behind the attacks that does not sound like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic.

You, too, appear to be operating from a forgone conclusion ("There is no possible narrative"). How much do you know about paranoid schizophrenia?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Funnily enough, the 911 Commission and the NIST reports also started with foregone conclusions.

Perhaps they did. However, they were both able to present a narrative that describes what they believe happened on 9/11.

Are you so able?

You, too, appear to be operating from a forgone conclusion ("There is no possible narrative"). How much do you know about paranoid schizophrenia?

I know that paranoid schizophrenia is characterized by a fragmenting of personality accompanied by loss of cognitive ability, paranoid delusions, and an inability to distinguish internal thoughts from external reality.

If you believe that there is a possible narrative that implicates the US government and doesn't sound pathologically paranoid and out of touch with reality, then please demonstrate it. Personally, I believe that if such a narrative existed, then millions of truthers, including thousands of qualified engineers, pilots, and intelligence operatives, would be able to articulate it after eight years of searching for "the truth".

I am ready to be proven wrong.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

 

[Hypatia]

For skeptics, the burden of proof is always on the claimant. That is, we don't believe a claim unless there is proof.

Re: the mindset of CT believers, they seem to have their minds on "auto-believe", which is to say they'll believe any claim which fits, emotionally, how they wish to see the world, and they don't require credible evidence. They place no burden of proof on claimants.

 

[JohnG]

For skeptics, the burden of proof is always on the claimant. That is, we don't believe a claim unless there is proof.

Re: the mindset of CT believers, they seem to have their minds on "auto-believe", which is to say they'll believe any claim which fits, emotionally, how they wish to see the world, and they don't require credible evidence. They place no burden of proof on claimants.

In other words, they adhere to a Credo Consolans. It's a way of looking at reality that I can sympathize with (as a former adherent), but can no longer respect.

 

[Merko]

They have only a conclusion, and their belief is that if you gather mountains of "evidence", some of it has to be true, even if large portions cancel each other out.

I think your observation is spot on. My favourite here is the anti-global warming truthers, where one and the same person may, in the same discussion, claim that a) the world is not getting warmer b) if it is getting warmer, it is not due to human activities c) if it is due to human activities, it's not dangerous d) if it is dangerous, there's nothing we can do about it anyway e) if there's something we could do, it's at least definitely not anything that is currently proposed.

All of this makes perfect sense to these people, because the one test of whether something is true or not in their minds, is whether it leads to the conclusion 'absolutely nothing should be done politically to curb global warming'.

 

[JohnG]

I think your observation is spot on. My favourite here is the anti-global warming truthers, where one and the same person may, in the same discussion, claim that a) the world is not getting warmer b) if it is getting warmer, it is not due to human activities c) if it is due to human activities, it's not dangerous d) if it is dangerous, there's nothing we can do about it anyway e) if there's something we could do, it's at least definitely not anything that is currently proposed.

All of this makes perfect sense to these people, because the one test of whether something is true or not in their minds, is whether it leads to the conclusion 'absolutely nothing should be done politically to curb global warming'.

The global warming deniers have always interested me. I feel they fall into two camps:

1. I don't want to believe in global warming because it is too frightening.

2. I don't want to believe in global warming because the steps needed to head it off/minimize it will negatively affect my quality of life, the amount of money my company makes, etc.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I think your observation is spot on. My favourite here is the anti-global warming truthers, where one and the same person may, in the same discussion, claim that a) the world is not getting warmer b) if it is getting warmer, it is not due to human activities c) if it is due to human activities, it's not dangerous d) if it is dangerous, there's nothing we can do about it anyway e) if there's something we could do, it's at least definitely not anything that is currently proposed.

Yes, the mindset is similar to that of the guy who says, "The food here is terrible! And the portions are too small!"

It only makes sense in the context that he wants to complain about something, and the specific facts of WHAT he is complaining about are unimportant.

 

[Biscuit]

Another mental hoop they jump through is assuming that if someone had a motive (almost always profit) then it validates all the circumstantial evidence they have gathered.

For example - Larry Silverstien (sp?) said "pull it", larry held the insurance policy, larry would make a lot of money, larry demolished the world trade center buildings... all of them.

Forget that WTC7 damaged other buildings on it way down and was not controlled, forget that it was hit with debris, forget that it burned for hours, forget that any chargers pre set up would have blown while it was burning, forget that no one could have rigged it the day of, forget that nearly every building commercial and private has insurance on it and a benefactor, forget all of it. Larry stood to make a lot of money so Larry did it.

Iraq war follows the same line of thinking. Bush could make a lot of money for fellow oil men so he must have caused 9/11 in order to do so. I refer to this, predictably, as underpants gnome logic.

 

[Nick Terry]

Unfortunately, truthers don't seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance at all. They seem to be perfectly happy to let conflicting ideas co-exist in their paranoid and twisted minds.

QFT.

Denialism blog just had a very interesting post on the psychology of crankery.

Someone should really feed the data from a decent and well constructed sample of internet trolls and loons on a range of subjects and from a variety of forums into a proper psychological model, and demonstrate exactly how all of these guys think. Because as you say, it clearly isn't how the rest of us think.

Alternatively, there's always the Stundies...

 

[Justin39640]

Funnily enough, the 911 Commission and the NIST reports also started with foregone conclusions.



You, too, appear to be operating from a forgone conclusion ("There is no possible narrative"). How much do you know about paranoid schizophrenia?

what foregone conclusion is the NIST working with?
that the buildings failed due to being struck by large fast moving planes and the fires ignited by the impacts or something else?

explosives are ruled out by the video/audio evidence alone
lack of signs of anything destroyed by explosives det cord tensioning cable pre-weakened beams etc etc

im sure they did look at those possibilities but ruled them out in the initial steps

 

[JihadJane]

Perhaps they did. However, they were both able to present a narrative that describes what they believe happened on 9/11.

So what? What does being able to present a narrative prove? It’s not difficult to write a story (with or without computer assistance).

Are you so able?

There isn't enough information in the public domain to present a narrative accurately representing what actually happened. However, speculating that powerful people are able to operate covertly is hardly a sign of mental illness.

I know that paranoid schizophrenia is characterized by a fragmenting of personality accompanied by loss of cognitive ability, paranoid delusions, and an inability to distinguish internal thoughts from external reality.

If you believe that there is a possible narrative that implicates the US government and doesn't sound pathologically paranoid and out of touch with reality, then please demonstrate it. Personally, I believe that if such a narrative existed, then millions of truthers, including thousands of qualified engineers, pilots, and intelligence operatives, would be able to articulate it after eight years of searching for "the truth".

I am ready to be proven wrong.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

You are only speaking in terms of your speculative beliefs.

You have made an extreme claim - that "Truthers" are either trolls or suffering from paranoid schizophrenia - it is up to you to back it up . It's not up to me to prove your speculation wrong. Prove it right!

For skeptics, the burden of proof is always on the claimant.

Perhaps Hypatia can help you. Does she think her husband is either suffering from paranoid schizophrenia or is a troll?

what foregone conclusion is the NIST working with?
that the buildings failed due to being struck by large fast moving planes and the fires ignited by the impacts or something else?

explosives are ruled out by the video/audio evidence alone
lack of signs of anything destroyed by explosives det cord tensioning cable pre-weakened beams etc etc

im sure they did look at those possibilities but ruled them out in the initial steps

I haven't seen any evidence that they did thoroughly investigate those possibilities.

The forgone conclusion was the narrative that was established very shortly after the attacks - namely that they were perpetrated by terrorists alone.


“Of course, this was the great blessing of our first president, George Washington — the original George W. … The greatest trait of Washington was to see things as they were and not as he wanted to see them. That was George W. Bush’s gift when it came to this war. He immediately upon being told of the attacks knew that this was war and that we were being attacked existentially by radical Islam.”

- Tim Goeglein, a former special assistant to President Bush.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/11/dobson-goeglein-bush/

 

[tuc0]

The forgone conclusion was the narrative that was established very shortly after the attacks - namely that they were perpetrated by terrorists alone.

Got any link for that? I always thought they investigated what happened after the planes hit and what led to the collapse.

 

[JihadJane]

Got any link for that? I always thought they investigated what happened after the planes hit and what led to the collapse.

The investigations were based on the forgone conclusion that the attacks perpetrated by terrorists alone. Do you disagree?

 

[tuc0]

The investigations were based on the forgone conclusion that the attacks perpetrated by terrorists alone. Do you disagree?

"The investigations"? Irrelevant. You were talking about NIST.

 

[aggle-rithm]

So what? What does being able to present a narrative prove? It’s not difficult to write a story (with or without computer assistance).

And yet, truthers refuse to do this when asked.

There isn't enough information in the public domain to present a narrative accurately representing what actually happened.

It doesn't have to be completely accurate in every detail. Just a general narrative, like this:

In 2001, Islamic terrorists who had been training in the United States with funding from al Qaeda hijacked four airliners, successfully crashing three of them into buildings that symbolized US economic and military power. A fourth airliner crashed into an empty field after an apparent attempt by the passengers to gain control of the plane.

See how easy that is? Why can't you do it?

However, speculating that powerful people are able to operate covertly is hardly a sign of mental illness.

No one is suggesting that it is. First, "speculating the powerful people are able to operate covertly" hardly represents the truther position. Second, I haven't said that truthers are mentally ill. However, among the problems I have already described, truthers seem to have problems wrapping their minds around the concept of "simile":

There is no possible narrative that points to the US Government as the agent behind the attacks that does not sound like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The investigations were based on the forgone conclusion that the attacks perpetrated by terrorists alone. Do you disagree?

Do you know of any other type of organization that has shown a willingness to target civilians in peacetime without any direct provocation, even at the cost of lives on its own side?

ETA: This is a perfect example of another problem with truther thinking: They can't seem to be able to focus on more than one thing at a time.

The example we've all heard many times is this:

Truther: No high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire alone!
Skeptic: But it wasn't just fire; there was also structural damage.
Truther: No high-rise building has ever collapsed from structural damage alone!

etc., etc.

JJ seems to have difficulty conceptualizing my theory as a whole, and is instead focusing on individual aspects of it.

The theory states that truthers categorize ideas according to their relationship to a foregone conclusion, while rational thinkers categorize them according to consistency with a theory. The fact that a rational thinker might formulate the theory based on a hypothesis (what JJ calls a foregone conclusion) is irrelevant. The key point is not that there is a bias towards a certain hypothesis, it's that for truthers, internal consistency is not important.