Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2022/Conspiracy theory motivation

Heading casing
-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Content Suggestion
Hi there. Brandolini's law states: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."

This may be useful in your overview about the dangers of conspiracy theories? check out the Wikipedia page for Brandolini's law if you are interested. U3162201 (discuss • contribs) 01:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Suggested source: Thinking Preferences and Conspiracy Belief
Hi There! Not sure if you've checked this source out yet but I thought it could provide helpful information. It discusses the Jumping-to conclusion bias and if it has a more pronounced rate in those who display a strong belief in conspiracy theories.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.568942/full BenjiD&#39;Ange (discuss • contribs) 06:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The "conspiracy theorist" archetype as a method for discrediting dissent and other inconveniences.
It seems likely that this trope or archetype is maintained as a fixture of popular culture for the purpose of casting doubt and uncertainty upon various inconvenient disclosures and dissent. In other words, someone who claims that the earth is flat and builds such a reputation around various false or incredulous claims, or even just presents such an appearance, would then be a poor representative for a given disclosure or scandal and may harm the credibility of certain people or information merely by association alone. Or rather, that's what I'd do if I wanted to ruin the credibility of some disclosure or political objective. Send a bunch of kooks to lend their "authority" to the matter. I think the article needs to at least acknowledge this possibility, which is self-evident as a public relations strategy. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 23:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I implore the author(s) to consider this carefully, and I'll ping since they seem to be the primary author. I'm hardly the first person to observe that psychiatry is frequently abused to pathologize dissent or otherwise control public opinion. Broadly, the article conflates "conspiratorial beliefs" with irrational thought patterns, and obviously this might give the reader a skewed perspective. I could go on, but I'll wait to see what others have to say. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)