Explaining belief in the absurd

So, Strømsgodset lost 2-3 today. Since I have to get up early tomorrow for work, I had to find other ways to celebrate than godly amounts of beer(no worries, I'll do it tomorrow night instead). My choice was to watch September Clues.

I have to say that this documentary blows the insanity-scale. Now, we're all familiar with those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job under the direction of [insert scary group of choice here]. This one takes it a step further. You see, there were NO planes on 9/11. It was just a hoax. Nobody died. The relatives we see are just actors.

This gives me a lot to ponder, amongst my general mixed feelings of disgust and amusement. How is it possible to attain such a level of paranoia and looniness? Are they all psychiatric cases, or is it possible for sane people to believe in such absurdities?

The first assumption doesn't give much room for debate, just hand 'em over to the nice men in white coats. So, for the sake of debate, let's assume that the latter is a fact. Let's say sane individuals are capable of believing in the absurd. But how?

What I like to do when examining something, is to try to break each case down to the various parts that make it up, do the same with other cases, then try to look for similarities and things to generalize(this is a deconstruction, btw, but no frags, it's not about killing all the whities). Will the fine gentlemen of the Backroom aid me in this?

First things first, we need to establish some boundaries. What is to be called "absurd", and what is not? I have a few suggestions off the top of my head along with September Clues:

- Holocaust denial, as in "Auswitzch was a happy place and the Nazi's didn't kill a single jew", not those playing the numbers game
- David Icke-ish beliefs
- ZetaTalk
- possibly Eurabia and other similar theories(very undecided though)

What I would not consider absurd are things like:

- religious practices
- new age people
- "normal" paranoia over security services like Mossad or CIA

That should give you a picture of what specifically I'm talking about. So, what is the make-up of the belief in the absurd? Is there some common ground between the different shades of looniness, besides what belongs in the realm of psychiatrists? How can we explain it?

You forgot the Flat Earth Society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

You forgot the Flat Earth Society.

---

Didn't forget them, they just didn't make the list ~;)

The flat earth society consists of just a handful of individuals, as far as I know. I should probably clarify two more points:

1. I'm looking for beliefs with a relatively big amount of followers. Individuals believing absurd things noone else believes seems like a case for men in white coats to me. When a substantial number of people share a belief, however, we are faced with two choices: the number of people diagnosed with mental disorders need to be heavily cranked up OR it is possible to explain such views in ways other than insanity. For this thread, I'm going with the assumption that the latter is true.

2. I included Eurabia and related theories. They are certainly absurd, but I wouldn't say that they are as absurd as September Clues. A no plane at all theory is a step up the absurdity ladder than saying Mossad drove the plane, to give an example. Still, there may be some common ground between the two, so I'm happy if someone has something to add here.

Moonies and scientologist's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Moonies and scientologist's

---

Oh yeah, the Operating Thetans. Priceless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Didn't forget them, they just didn't make the list ~;)

The flat earth society consists of just a handful of individuals, as far as I know. I should probably clarify two more points:

1. I'm looking for beliefs with a relatively big amount of followers. Individuals believing absurd things noone else believes seems like a case for men in white coats to me. When a substantial number of people share a belief, however, we are faced with two choices: the number of people diagnosed with mental disorders need to be heavily cranked up OR it is possible to explain such views in ways other than insanity. For this thread, I'm going with the assumption that the latter is true.

2. I included Eurabia and related theories. They are certainly absurd, but I wouldn't say that they are as absurd as September Clues. A no plane at all theory is a step up the absurdity ladder than saying Mossad drove the plane, to give an example. Still, there may be some common ground between the two, so I'm happy if someone has something to add here.

---

One big thing is the power of the group - you'll be much more likely to believe something if you have a group to back you up, and groups are easier to persuade or whip up than individuals.

Beyond that - you have the Sherlock Holmes theory, that once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth - taken to an extreme. Most 9/11 conspiracies hinge on the idea that the official version can't possibly be true, so it must have been a set up.

To be fair, what actually happened is literally a plot-device from a Tom Clancy novel, but Tom made it a Japanese pilot who crashed his plane into Congress.

People will believe most anything just because they like the concept. Reading it from a book also helps.

Some people want to believe that their politicians are really reptiles from another galaxy. It explains their seemingly inexplicable motives.

Why do people believe the Pope is the vicar of Christ? Some how it makes them feel better that God has a representative of authority on Earth. And God can only be proven through faith.

An atheist will assume all religions as absurd but believers will say the atheist is wrong because of the individual experiences of the believer or because they feel it so strongly.

The human mind may be somehow programmed in this regard. All of us believe in things we have not seen or theories we have not proven experimentally ourselves.

Example: most all of us, I am sure, believe in the existence of the outer planets but very few of us have looked into a telescope and seen them. We merely take others at their word as proof of their being.

Flat cat theory

It also depends on the perceived authority of those who advocate such a belief. Tom Cruise does not have the gavitas as the Pope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

One big thing is the power of the group - you'll be much more likely to believe something if you have a group to back you up, and groups are easier to persuade or whip up than individuals.

---

But how do you explain how someone 'buys into it'? Why does someone who didn't previously believe that no planes hit WTC watch September Clues and suddenly starts thinking that's what happened? Why doesn't everyone disregard it as nonsense?

Some swedes made a mockumentary a few years ago. They aired as a normal documentary, without telling anyone it was nonsense. The claim made was that the football world cup hosted by sweden didn't happen - it was just a hoax fabricated by various powers. After watching it, a hefty amount of swedes actually believed it. How is that possible?

It comes from the very nature of a 'conspiracy theory'; it presupposes a ultra powerful and secretive 'them' about whom by definition "we can never know much". As they are ultra powerful and we can never know the extent of their power they can be resposible for anything. Because we can never know about 'them' they can never be disproved. The definitions of the terms make verification and falsification impossible.

You might like: http://www.ted.com/talks/ex_moonie_d...lts_think.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So, what is the make-up of the belief in the absurd? Is there some common ground between the different shades of looniness, besides what belongs in the realm of psychiatrists? How can we explain it?

---

The answer seems to be "motivated reasoning" The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science

I disagree with that article and the 'neurscience' explanation. Many scientists disagree over scientific theories and how they decide which theory is 'right' is often very little to do with 'facts'. Read Khuns Stricture of Scoentific Revolutions.

Bam! Minds blown

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/...0917-2100a.mp3

Quote:

---

- Holocaust denial, as in "Auswitzch was a happy place and the Nazi's didn't kill a single jew", not those playing the numbers game
- David Icke-ish beliefs
- ZetaTalk
- possibly Eurabia and other similar theories(very undecided though)

What I would not consider absurd are things like:

- religious practices
- new age people
- "normal" paranoia over security services like Mossad or CIA

---

any reason why you would call the former absurd and the latter not? or is that for us to disect? just wondering.

aparantly being absurd is being grossly unreasonable. if you take being unreasonable to mean being irrational and being irrational to mean that people who act in a way that is inconsistent (for example doing something counter- or unproductive) with their other views or goals believing or doing something absurd would be the following: have the goal to get to play A in the fastest way possible and then knowingly take the longest route to place A. Or since doing something absurd is grossly unreasonable thus grossly irrational it would be a more extreme example such as believing that killing people is bad and worship Stalin as your personal hero.

I didn't disagree with yourstyle, if you take it there that's ok. It' weird but who am I to judge you. It's just different

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I didn't disagree with yourstyle, if you take it there that's ok. It' weird but who am I to judge you. It's just different

---

is that response to me? if so im a bit lost as to what it must mean, sorry :P

(and i dont mean that sarcastic or anything, i really do not understand it)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

is that response to me? if so im a bit lost as to what it must mean, sorry :P

(and i dont mean that sarcastic or anything, i really do not understand it)

---

I am really ok with it don't worry. If that is what you prefer that's ok, I just won't it's too much

lol wtf :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

lol wtf :P

---

It's about the absurd n'es pas you are my first victim

im still flabbergasted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

im still flabbergasted.

---

What fun would it be if you weren't

Good to know facts. We have a "rejection center" that rewards us when we are rejecting information we're disagreeing (in particlar with an aggressive response, and that's more or less the standard response to bizzare theories). We also have a justification center. In that center we're always right, no matter how bizzare it seems, even for us. So to make up that we're right, we'll make up theories even if it's bizarre.

As pointed out in the article, have enough emotional input into something and you have to be right in this, in particular if you did something evil (to say sub-humans) or was exposed for something nasty (that you deny was something nasty).
Alternate is not being able to comprehend the other person/action. If you can't understand that anybody can be so nice (or evil), then you'll need to make up something in terms you can comprehend.
Of course, sometimes things leaks through, so we have to be even more bizarrre in the denial. Nazis=good, holocaust=evil, so to keep nazis=good, then holocaust can't have happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

im still flabbergasted.

---

I think he has been smoking again? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

any reason why you would call the former absurd and the latter not? or is that for us to disect? just wondering.

aparantly being absurd is being grossly unreasonable. if you take being unreasonable to mean being irrational and being irrational to mean that people who act in a way that is inconsistent (for example doing something counter- or unproductive) with their other views or goals believing or doing something absurd would be the following: have the goal to get to play A in the fastest way possible and then knowingly take the longest route to place A. Or since doing something absurd is grossly unreasonable thus grossly irrational it would be a more extreme example such as believing that killing people is bad and worship Stalin as your personal hero.

---

To take "absurd" first: I'm using "absurd" to describe something that is both impossible and culturally/socially inappropriate(which is basically the psychiatric use of the term, which is what I'm using). Ie., it must describe something that simply cannot be the truth, and it can't be a common opinion either. Like September Clues, for example. It's just no way there were no planes on 9/11, that's clearly impossible. It's also clearly socially inappropriate.

As for my separation, yeah, that's open for debate too. I think there's a big difference between the two though, the first list seems much crazier than the second list. Therefore I think they can be explained differently. Still, I'm interested in arguments against that and explanations for the second list too, of course. To continue with the 9/11 example, it's relatively common to believe that some poweful elite group controls a lot of things behind the scenes. Exactly what group that is varies wildly, of course. So, stating that group X were the real perpetrators on 9/11 really isn't that shocking to relatively many. But yeah, it's still pretty damn whacko.

How about telling your kids about santa claus? its both impossible and lying which is socially inappropriate. :P

does the absurd has to be both impossible and culturally/socially inappropriate or can it be either impossible or culturally/socially inappropriate or both? If it is the former I dont really see why it has to, for me belief in the clearly impossible (according to ones own views) is already rather absurd.

yet at the same time, often people regard something as absurd even if its not impossible but only culturally/socially inappropriate. (such as the belief hitler was a good man for example)

That anything exists at all. It'd be plenty easier for there to be nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Example: most all of us, I am sure, believe in the existence of the outer planets but very few of us have looked into a telescope and seen them. We merely take others at their word as proof of their being.

---

You're not taking into account pictures and video (i.e. evidence). Watch Hubble 3D. Mind-blowing stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

How about telling your kids about santa claus? its both impossible and lying which is socially inappropriate. :P

does the absurd has to be both impossible and culturally/socially inappropriate or can it be either impossible or culturally/socially inappropriate or both? If it is the former I dont really see why it has to, for me belief in the clearly impossible (according to ones own views) is already rather absurd.

yet at the same time, often people regard something as absurd even if its not impossible but only culturally/socially inappropriate. (such as the belief hitler was a good man for example)

---

That's a different subject than what I made this thread for.

I think that's interesting as well though, so if you want to discuss it further, I can create another thread for it.

allright, i thought your question was twofold, but you only want us to come up with beliefs people actually have that would be absurd according to the definition you gave?

im interested in the other subject, i will probably write my thesis about belief in general and i hadnt actually thought about belief in the absurd that much which is actually quite interesting so im happy you brought it up :P

Something makes me suspect that were just hardwired to prefer anecdotal evidence from an evolutionary perspective.

If we decide to not eat mushrooms because we felt sick this will probably will not remove us from the genepool, but if we continue to eat the mushrooms of differant kinds this could kill us.

Essentially making a sweeping general choice safeguards us and allows us pass on our genes, nowadays were likely not a risk from eating a forest mushroom but our brains still make those same choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Something makes me suspect that were just hardwired to prefer anecdotal evidence from an evolutionary perspective.

If we decide to not eat mushrooms because we felt sick this will probably will not remove us from the genepool, but if we continue to eat the mushrooms of differant kinds this could kill us.

Essentially making a sweeping general choice safeguards us and allows us pass on our genes, nowadays were likely not a risk from eating a forest mushroom but our brains still make those same choices.

---

Where does preference on anecdotal evidence factor into humanities natural tendency to imagine and create? Anecdotal evidence usually relies on something having an effect on you, not the other way around. It's logic and critical thinking that has someone shaping a handle for a tool to create more torque.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Where does preference on anecdotal evidence factor into humanities natural tendency to imagine and create? Anecdotal evidence usually relies on something having an effect on you, not the other way around. It's logic and critical thinking that has someone shaping a handle for a tool to create more torque.

---

Actually, it's isn't logic and critically thinking - logic and critical thinking is how you develop an idea, not how you come up with one.


Anecdotal observation is how you conclude that logs rolls better than sleds, so putting logs under your sleds would be a good idea.