Conspiracy theorists & religious more likely to commit ‘conjunction fallacy’

[C C]

https://www.psypost.org/2021/08/conspira...iews-61675

EXCERPTS: A study published in Applied Cognitive Psychology sheds light on how a person’s worldview can lead them to jump to erroneous conclusions in domains that correspond to these views. The researchers found that greater conspiracy belief was associated with increased susceptibility to making logical errors in the context of coronavirus conspiracies, and greater religiosity was tied to increased susceptibility to logical errors in the context of miraculous healings.

The study, led by Albert Wabnegger, specifically focused on the conjunction fallacy, a logical fallacy that presumes that a combination of events is more probable than a single event. Conjunction fallacies were first described by Tversky and Kahneman in 1982, following a study that began with participants reading a description of a woman named Linda who was passionate about social justice. Most participants evaluated the statement “Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement” as more probable than “Linda is a bank teller” — without knowing Linda’s job title or position on feminist issues. According to probability theory, two events (being a bank teller + being active in the feminist movement) cannot be more probable than a single event (being a bank teller).

[...] Wabnegger and colleagues theorize that when people with a particular world view — such as a conspiracy mindset — are met with information that corresponds to this view, they are quicker to draw conclusions about the information but more likely to make errors. Favoring a conclusion that fits their preconceptions, they ignore basic probability laws or the need for additional evidence.

Furthermore, studies suggest that religious people and conspiracy supporters tend to have a lower tolerance for randomness and a greater tendency to detect meaningful patterns out of random stimuli. Perceiving two distinct occurrences as more probable than one alone may reflect these individuals’ readiness to discern patterns out of randomness as a way of coping with uncertainty.

The authors note that their study cannot inform whether proneness to conjunction errors is a cause of religiosity/conspiracy belief, or whether it might be a response to such belief. They say a follow-up study with a longitudinal design would offer further insight... (MORE - missing details)
- - - - - -

Sounds like there's a little in common with the ideological preconceptions, statistical fallacies, and motivated reasoning of scientists themselves, working in the human disciplines.
https://www.scivillage.com/forum-88.html

[Syne]

They only studied the relationship of conspiracy and religion with the fallacy. This gives us zero points of external comparison. "More likely" than who? If, for example, they had tested some leftist sacred cow, would they have found similar rates of the fallacy compared to the control condition? We don't know, because they didn't bother to pose the glaringly obvious and bias-eliminating question. If there is no difference between sacred cows of any persuasion, singling out these is pointless, at best, and politically biased non-science, at worst.

[Leigha]

Since Covid came on the scene, it seems 'conspiracy theorist' has become the new catch-phrase typically used (by the left) to pretty much dismiss anything the right has to say that differs in any way from the left. Someone may have a logical argument but because it goes against the grain, it's brushed away as ''meh, you're just a conspiracy theorist.''

And, how about conspiracy theories that have turned out to be true?

[Syne]

Yeah, aside from the really fringe people, most of what the right has said about Covid has turned out to be true.
But that's true of most things the left claims. Given enough time, they all prove to be the slippery slopes the right warned of. Just look at gay marriage. Does anyone seriously think we'd have elementary school children being taught about masturbation and transgenders without it?

That's the thing about progressivism. If ever quits progressing, even beyond all common sense, it loses its raison d'etre.

[Leigha]

Agree somewhat with that. ^

In part, I've always viewed the idea of being a progressive, as someone who is interested in seeking liberty for all while coming up with ''better'' ideas, but that's not really what's happening, here. Every person has intrinsic value, and every person we should agree, deserves equal, civil rights. But, equality at the expense of liberty (for all) is what has been passing for progressivism, or so it seems.

[Syne]

That's why, even though we have full equality under the law, progressives have to make up "systemic racism", racist boulders, fake racist baseball fans, fake lynching attempts, etc.. The leftist demand for racism is way higher than the supply of actual racism. But if leftists admit that we've accomplished any ideals, they'd be out of jobs, money, and power. So there's a desperation to keep inventing new problems...and even more so to not solve any problems (being against school vouchers comes to mind).

[C C]

[...] That's the thing about progressivism. If ever quits progressing, even beyond all common sense, it loses its raison d'etre.

In the last sentence below, Jim Farber seems to acknowledge that a particular movement under progressivism could potentially die, if it gets "everyone" to jump on its bandwagon. But still, the rest of the beast must keep going (progressing), and avoid the same degree of suicidal inclusiveness (no matter how much it preaches in favor of it).

Categorically Gay
https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/06...story.html

EXCERPTS: For queer people who grew up in an era when rigid identities were essential, today’s fluidity can feel like their history is washing out with the tide.

[...] Precisely two weeks later, a 22-year-old acquaintance confided in me that despite never having enjoyed so much as a kiss from another woman, and after avidly dating boys since puberty, she was experiencing some unacted-upon “thoughts” about her female friends. She followed this several months later by reporting that she had fallen in love with a man. Eight months later, they married. Yet she still wanted to affix the Q word to herself, in her case to signify “questioning.”

[Which is to say, it's cool and fashionable to be part of LGBTQ+ on campus, in high society, philanthropic circles, etc. Especially to exploit it. Like celebrities pretentiously adopting the non-binary "they" pronoun for themselves: Dominique Provost Chalkley. And belatedly announcing that they're bisexual for broadening career purposes as the age of 40 looms: Anna Paquin.]

I ran all this by gay peers of mine, meaning those who range in age from their late 40s to their early 60s, who had all come out in the ’70s and ’80s. Nearly every one of them mirrored my feelings precisely, before sharing similar stories of colleagues and acquaintances in their own lives.

It seems that many of us from that era are struggling to reconcile our excitement over the openness of the age of sexual and gender fluidity with the past we experienced, when sexual rigidity proved an indispensable tool—both for us and for the movement. Back then, it wasn’t a matter of “questioning,” but of asserting, not of exploring, but of declaring. And that history very much matters.

[...] Wonderful as this is in many ways, today’s openness isn’t without consequences. If nearly any progressively minded person can find some way to identify as queer, what, exactly, does the term even mean? When I hear about fluidity in that context, it sounds like something made to wash away gay history—my history—drowning it in inclusiveness to broaden its clout. Perhaps that’s an inevitable element of advancement. After all, every movement winds up making itself irrelevant if it’s successful enough.

[Leigha]

In doing a little reading on this, progressives actually lean left of liberals. Hmm. Is it fair then to say that all progressives would consider themselves liberal, but not all liberals subscribe to progressivism? Progressivism in theory is supposed to be for all us “ordinary” people, yes? But, it doesn’t feel that way.

[Syne]

Well, there's a difference between liberalism (individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise) and left-liberalism (which believes that the collective good and government authority can justify restricting freedom). Progressivism isn't all that different from left-liberalism, and the modern US right most strongly espouses classic liberalism. But yes, progressives do tend to be more radically left than the average Democrat, and most consider themselves Democrats, except when the left eats itself due to opposing goals of its own identitarian cabals.

The progressive propaganda is helping the little guy, but they prioritize any progress over finding out if their progress actually succeeds at their purported goals. Since modern progressivism is all about social reform, it has to constantly attack everything, as a potential target for reform, increasingly vilifying everything.

[C C]

In doing a little reading on this, progressives actually lean left of liberals. Hmm. Is it fair then to say that all progressives would consider themselves liberal, but not all liberals subscribe to progressivism? Progressivism in theory is supposed to be for all us “ordinary” people, yes? But, it doesn’t feel that way.

The left hates capitalism, whereas progressives (in a pure state) don't. The left was largely born in the French Revolution, and its enmity toward the privileged aristocracy of the time and toward all class systems. Marxism can trace part of its lineage to the Jacobins. Just as the Elmer Gantry segment of religion can exploit do-gooderism for their own careers, so there can be opportunistic altruism running amok with the left.