I'm not sure about this. I had so many friends radicalised into alt right conspiracies theories during covid. They were relatively normal people before that.
The biggest problem may not be conspiracy theories, which have always existed (“Nonnulla etiam ab iis qui diligentiores uideri uolebant fingebantur,” said Julius Caesar in Book II of the Bellun Civile - “Some news was the fruit of the imagination even of those who wanted to appear better informed.”). The problem is the financing model of internet platforms, which facilitate the viralization of content that generates great emotional engagement by paying more money to links that receive more clicks. But a certain personal, group or social predisposition is obviously indispensable for people to become radicalized, because not everyone reacts in the same way to the same content. For example, I follow Trump on Facebook because I like to mock the nonsense he says. Nothing that Trump or his followers say is capable of radicalizing me for or against them. We need to cultivate a certain skepticism and a willingness to ironize everything, including our own beliefs. This works as a vaccine against misinformation distributed by algorithms that recommend content and by people close to you as well.
Some quite controversial ideas about the root of consipracy theories here. I certainly agree with the general thesis that increased poverty and a widening of the gap between the 'have's and the 'have nots' fuels the dissemination of conspiracy theories. I'm not so convinced by some of Peter Knight's other ideas. I'd have loved to be able to hear the Q&A after this lecture. Shame that GC chose to edit it out.
I think traditionally it was institutions like the public media, science, philosophy and leaders (political, religious, etc.) that decided if something was true. They used to have common standards and so people believed in common sense or at least in what was believed to be common sense. Now there are a host of influencers that have partially taken over the job of the former and they tend be very partisan. They have thrown away many of the rules that had been established in times before on how discourse is supposed to happen. Even worse, they not only function by different rulesets but they tend to ridicule the notion of such rules itself. Truth is but a hassle for those people and they hold true whatever is convenient for them a the time. Some of them even are actively trying to destroy the idea of truth itself either to make people give up on engaging with the public sphere or to propagate their lies-fueled partisan agenda. Those people that still hold that there should be common rules regarding public discourse are seen with such distrust and even contempt that it is basically impossible for them to be taken seriously by those who have turned against what they see as the corrupt establishment.
A conspiracy is simply an agreement between two or more people to engage in a crime. There are real conspiracies, such as the conspiracy to murder Caesar in ancient Rome, or the conspiracy to oust the Romanovs in the late Russian Empire and resulted in the October Revolution. A "conspiracy theory" popularly means a belief about people acting together for malicious intent, whether criminal or not, often held with some tangential evidence but lacking much context. But when a conspiracy has real contextual evidence, is it derisive to call it a real theory? But one must have proper evidence and context to establish whether such a theory is realistic or not.
Yes, but only provided you have accurate models, and all the relevant information on hand. If you have so-so models and incomplete information, you'll still find some events or developments surprising or unusual, which leaves gaps for "conspiracies".
For each that turns out to be somewhat accurate, you have dozens completely misleading ones, but naturally confirmation bias is a thing, and if someone already believes a conspiracy theory, almost anything can serve as a "proof" of its veracity. That's my take on it, anyway, but I'm curious which conspiracies you had in mind that turned out to be true? There are some lists out there of conspiracies proven beyond any doubt to have been true, did you mean those?
As a non-believer in conspiracies I was really surprised by this lecture. I did believe in some of these myths. I'm recommending this lecture to everyone in my bubble of lefties. 😅
It is disappointing that academics are so biased towards one way of political thinking, such as this speaker. He would have far more credibility if he was able to hold a center line and provide examples. Peter Knight, try to hold your distain for one political view and your hypothesis lightly. It's a fail from me!
Can't find a biography on this guy but I'm guessing he's needed to make a heartfelt apology to the Jewish community at some point. Gresham College seems to pick a certain kind of academic.
I'm not sure about this. I had so many friends radicalised into alt right conspiracies theories during covid. They were relatively normal people before that.
It has long seemed to me that conspiracy theories are most likely to arise as ways to reconcile reality with dogma.
The biggest problem may not be conspiracy theories, which have always existed (“Nonnulla etiam ab iis qui diligentiores uideri uolebant fingebantur,” said Julius Caesar in Book II of the Bellun Civile - “Some news was the fruit of the imagination even of those who wanted to appear better informed.”). The problem is the financing model of internet platforms, which facilitate the viralization of content that generates great emotional engagement by paying more money to links that receive more clicks. But a certain personal, group or social predisposition is obviously indispensable for people to become radicalized, because not everyone reacts in the same way to the same content. For example, I follow Trump on Facebook because I like to mock the nonsense he says. Nothing that Trump or his followers say is capable of radicalizing me for or against them. We need to cultivate a certain skepticism and a willingness to ironize everything, including our own beliefs. This works as a vaccine against misinformation distributed by algorithms that recommend content and by people close to you as well.
Per adua non sequitorus pabulum indefinato?
ayay anmay ofyay eniusgay akesmay onay istakesmay . ishay errorsyay areyay olitionalvay andyay areyay ethay ortalspay ofyay iscoveryday .
How are to know that this lecture is not disinformation?
It's certainly sounding that way on a 3rd listen. The intonation is different.
What?
Some quite controversial ideas about the root of consipracy theories here. I certainly agree with the general thesis that increased poverty and a widening of the gap between the 'have's and the 'have nots' fuels the dissemination of conspiracy theories. I'm not so convinced by some of Peter Knight's other ideas. I'd have loved to be able to hear the Q&A after this lecture. Shame that GC chose to edit it out.
Who's to decide what's a conspiracy and what's not?
No one "decides", things are either true or they are not. Conspiracy theories are not true.
I think traditionally it was institutions like the public media, science, philosophy and leaders (political, religious, etc.) that decided if something was true. They used to have common standards and so people believed in common sense or at least in what was believed to be common sense. Now there are a host of influencers that have partially taken over the job of the former and they tend be very partisan. They have thrown away many of the rules that had been established in times before on how discourse is supposed to happen. Even worse, they not only function by different rulesets but they tend to ridicule the notion of such rules itself. Truth is but a hassle for those people and they hold true whatever is convenient for them a the time. Some of them even are actively trying to destroy the idea of truth itself either to make people give up on engaging with the public sphere or to propagate their lies-fueled partisan agenda. Those people that still hold that there should be common rules regarding public discourse are seen with such distrust and even contempt that it is basically impossible for them to be taken seriously by those who have turned against what they see as the corrupt establishment.
A conspiracy is simply an agreement between two or more people to engage in a crime. There are real conspiracies, such as the conspiracy to murder Caesar in ancient Rome, or the conspiracy to oust the Romanovs in the late Russian Empire and resulted in the October Revolution.
A "conspiracy theory" popularly means a belief about people acting together for malicious intent, whether criminal or not, often held with some tangential evidence but lacking much context.
But when a conspiracy has real contextual evidence, is it derisive to call it a real theory? But one must have proper evidence and context to establish whether such a theory is realistic or not.
So no conspiracy theory ever turned out to be true?..ok then 😂@@Hoffenboffen7
obviously that would be the US and Bibi...
Understanding how class, politics & economic interact would save a lot of their confusion or need for wild explanations.
Yes, but only provided you have accurate models, and all the relevant information on hand. If you have so-so models and incomplete information, you'll still find some events or developments surprising or unusual, which leaves gaps for "conspiracies".
I agree with the speakers last sentence
I mean jeez..its utterly baffling..i cant understand why ppl believe in them..its not like they keep coming true 😂
For each that turns out to be somewhat accurate, you have dozens completely misleading ones, but naturally confirmation bias is a thing, and if someone already believes a conspiracy theory, almost anything can serve as a "proof" of its veracity. That's my take on it, anyway, but I'm curious which conspiracies you had in mind that turned out to be true? There are some lists out there of conspiracies proven beyond any doubt to have been true, did you mean those?
prebunking : inoculation, or endoctrination?
As a non-believer in conspiracies I was really surprised by this lecture. I did believe in some of these myths. I'm recommending this lecture to everyone in my bubble of lefties. 😅
I wondered how long it would be before he mentioned Trump.
And Why did you think Trump would be mentioned?
Be honest now
Pretend you're under oath
It is disappointing that academics are so biased towards one way of political thinking, such as this speaker. He would have far more credibility if he was able to hold a center line and provide examples. Peter Knight, try to hold your distain for one political view and your hypothesis lightly. It's a fail from me!
Oh no, got your feelings hurt?
@@csr7080 Is that your standard reply? Obviously not understanding the comment. Try harder.
And who's on your academic playlist, Kaylyn?
Difference between conspiracy theory and fact? About 3 weeks.
So deep.
@@shakiMikitruth isn't deep or shallow..it just is
You're either sarcastic
or don't know the definition of
theory or truth
Can't find a biography on this guy but I'm guessing he's needed to make a heartfelt apology to the Jewish community at some point. Gresham College seems to pick a certain kind of academic.
So.... you're just speculating wildly because it fits the narrative in your head, got it.
No he "couched" his comment properly.
Increasingly, we believe them because they keep turning out to be true.
No way....most are unprovable.
The "proof" is just a theory
I began by looking for a Boy Scouts branch for my Son, within 2 months I was the leader of a Neo-Nazi biker gang.
This gentleman spoke of community, im watching my community fall apart from multiculturalism...so conspiracy theories mean nothing to me.