Conspiracy Theorists are Lazy Thinkers

I used the term "lazy thinkers" to be provocative.

The truth is that lazy thinking is nothing more than "natural thinking." Every lower animal on the planet operates on intuition, or "what feels right." Humans who have not learned the skills of critical thinking naturally engage in the same thinking patterns as other animals.  

I am attracted to conspiracy theories. There is something about the idea of a conspiracy that titillates a paranoid vein that runs through the human psyche. However, conspiracy theories say much about us and very little about reality. It is not that conspiracies are impossible, just that the likelihood of successfully executing a large scale conspiracy approaches the impossible. The old adage, “Two people can keep a secret as long as one of them is dead,” rings true more often than not.

For any given belief, we will encounter disputing evidence (indicating that the belief is false) and supporting evidence (indicating that the belief is true). Folks with highly developed critical thinking skills approach these two pools of opposing evidence by objectively evaluating the quality and the weight of both pools. The foundation of a developed intellect is the willingness to change positions when disputing evidence clearly outweighs supporting evidence. This requires a great deal of emotional maturity. Our beliefs are rooted in our egos and we are wired to protect our egos at all cost. Shifting positions when disputing evidence outweighs supporting evidence also requires a deep commitment to truth. Truths are often uncomfortable and/or undesirable. Critical thinking requires that objective truth (what is true) must take priority over individual ego needs (what feels true or what we would like to be true).   

The Critical Thinker's thought process looks like this:

The Conspiracy Theorist engages an entirely different process when presented with conflicting pools of evidence. The conspiracy theorist accepts ALL supporting evidence, regardless of quality, and rejects ALL disputing evidence, also regardless of quality. Disputing evidence will either be ignored or the source for the evidence will be baselessly maligned. The ultimate result of this process is the elimination for the opportunity to learn, aka willful ignorance. In the words of Dudley Field Malone, "I have never in my life learned anything from someone who agreed with me."

The Conspiracy Theorist's thought process looks like this:

Identifying Quality Sources of Information:

In the midst of the information age, distinguishing good information from bad information can be extremely difficult. People untrained in recognizing logical fallacies can be easily manipulated to believe even the most absurd claims (examples: The moon landing was faked. Obama is a foreign-born, closet Muslim. The government is hiding UFOs. Hillary Clinton is a serial killer who runs child sex rings. Ronald Reagan was in the Illuminati.). Relying on "reasoning" from outside sources to establish where one stands on the issues is akin to relying on a car salesman to determine which automobile you should buy.

• Despite claims to the contrary, mainstream sources of information tend to be of much higher quality than unconventional sources. Every place in the free world gets pretty much the same news. The mainstream media in the US reflects reputable news outlets in England, France, Germany, India, Australia, Japan, etc. The Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal, Google News, The BBC, Reuters, and most professional journals are reliable, albeit not perfect sources for accurate news. These sources mirror the news from the rest of the free world. News reported by outlets in countries with authoritarian governments such as those of Iran, Russia, and North Korea, like news reported by Right Wing media outlets and fringe Left Wing outlets in the US, report very different news that is often in direct conflict with legitimate sources.
• News sources from authoritarian regions, as well as, sources from Right Wing and fringe Left Wing American outlets, use the "news" as an instrument for propaganda. However, citizens in countries with authoritarian governments have no choice but to consume fake news, while a huge percentage of mainstream Right Wingers and nearly all fringe Left Wingers in the US avoid legitimate news by choice. THIS is how a narcissistic, predatory, conspiracy theorist, who makes fun of the handicapped and spouts obscene vulgarities, became President of the United States.
• 

  Mathematics and scientific research represents the gold standard for quality information at this time. The statement, "any position can be proven with statistics," is patently false. It is true that statistics can be used by dishonest presenters to manipulate those who are untrained in statistics, however, there is an ultimate truth that will be revealed through the scrupulous use of statistics.
• While scientific research is often inaccurate, every advancement in the modern world has resulted from the application of science. As yet, there is no process more effective in the discerning accurate understanding of the physical universe than science. If the efficacy of science is not overwhelmingly evidenced by your own life experiences (as it should be to any self-aware human being), then developing a deeper understanding of the scientific method and the peer-review process should dispel any lingering doubts.

Consider The Global Warming Hoax:

Everyone knows the statistic that 97% of climatologists concur with the research that supports global warming as a legitimate phenomenon exacerbated by human activity. 

The conspiracy theory holds that first, global warming is a hoax conjured by the Democratic Party in the US. Second, scientists have skewed their research data in favor of global warming in order to procure grant money from liberal universities.  And third, because the Democratic Party has a greater interest in conservation and environmental protections and the Republican Party has a greater interest in protecting industry, Democrats benefit from the acceptance of climate change as an actual and man-made phenomenon.

•  Global warming was dreamed up by the Democratic Party.
• The 97% of scientists figure is not limited to American scientists. It means that 97% of the scientists in the entire world accept the findings on climate change. Even if the Democratic Party were important enough to American scientists to risk sabotaging their own careers by falsifying data, it is inconceivable that scientists from every other country in the world would be so invested! Even if we were to change the premise from a plot invented by the Democratic Party to a plot invented by liberals in general, the idea of such a global initiative is ludicrous.
• Scientists receive research grants from liberal universities.
• Many scientists work for universities. Others work for government agencies. Still others work for industry. At any rate, the funds provided for research grants are typically supplied by outside sources and not by universities. Even if we accepted the bizarre idea that scientists across the globe could be bribed into torpedoing the integrity of their chosen profession, we would still need an industry capable of providing the motherlode of funds needed to accomplish the task. Which industry would stand a better chance of pulling this off, Big Oil (which benefits from disproving global warming) or Big Windmill (which benefits from proving global warming true)?
• Democrats profit from the efficacy of climate change
• Which makes more sense? 30 years ago, some Democrat mastermind or thinktank randomly invented an environmental phenomenon and was able to secretly coerce 97% of the scientists on Earth to fake research data... Or that the most lucrative industry in the world advanced a conspiracy theory to protect its own interests?

In truth, the global warming phenomenon has no more to do with politics than gravity theory or germ theory. Scientists simply support the efficacy of global warming because there is an ocean of high-quality supporting evidence for the theory and a tiny drip of low quality disputing evidence against the theory. If new, high quality, evidence disputing global warming grew to outweigh existing supporting evidence, every scientist worth her salt would shift positions and we would find the vast majority of scientists denying the theory. This is how the developed intellect operates.

Who Should Liberals Vote for in the Upcoming Election?

The graph on the left from Political Compass provides some interesting insights into voting patterns. Hillary is further to the right than Donald Trump, but she is less of a dictator. The reasons I hear Republicans give for hating Hillary are Benghazi and the e-mails. Given that equally heinous acts have been perpetrated by Republicans, I am fairly certain that the real reason they hate Hillary is just that she is a Democrat. One thing I have in common with many Republicans is that I find the DNC reprehensible. If nothing else

Republicans are team players. The support they are showing for Donald Trump, an outright buffoon, demonstrates their commitment to the team.

My reasons for disliking Hillary, however, are very different than the reasons most Republicans give. Hillary was the primary beneficiary of Citizens United. Her campaign is being financed by the billionaire class. Studies have shown definitively that bills favored by billionaires have a very high probability of being made into laws, while bills favored by the vast majority of the American people have a near zero probability of being passed. Simply stated, the Republican and Democratic parties do not represent American citizens. Like most of congress, Hillary Clinton represents her benefactors. She is hawkish in foreign policy because armed conflicts funnel tax funds to defense contractors. They, in turn, "donate" to political candidates. In 2015-16, the defense sector donated $27 million to political candidates, $16.4 million to Republicans and $11 million to Democrats.

QUESTION: As a dyed in the wool leftie patriot who wholeheartedly supports our democratic republic and the United States Constitution… Who should I vote for? Regardless of party affiliation, or absence thereof, I would never vote for Donald Trump. He is more akin to a cartoon character than a legitimate presidential candidate. Hillary Clinton who, despite much yelling and screaming to the contrary from both major parties, is actually the mainstream conservative candidate. Gary Johnson (who has no chance of winning) is further to the right than anyone remaining in the race. And although she has an excellent platform, Jill Stein (also has no chance of winning) is completely unqualified for the job of Commander in Chief.  

ANSWER: I must vote for Hillary Clinton. Why? As an aspiring intellectual, I pride myself on overriding my own desired outcomes when they are disputed by overwhelming objective data. It is all but a mathematical certainty that the next President of the United States will either be Clinton or Trump. The potential for catastrophic damage resulting from a Trump presidency is truly an unknown. The course for a Clinton presidency is not particularly desirable to me but it is completely predictable with low risk for unprecedented disaster. Ironically, one of Hillary's top ten campaign promises is to fight for overturning Citizen's United. Her platform also includes raising the minimum wage, not increasing taxes on the middle-class, college tuition breaks for families making less than $125k per year, comprehensive immigration reform, and an increased investment in improving our infrastructure. 

Blue Lives Matter / Black Lives Matter

That Blue Lives Matter is not in dispute. Unjust killings of police officers are met with outrage, demands for justice,

systemic support for victims' families, and an effort to decrease these incidents in the future. We honor such victims as heroes. This is as it should be. Unjust killings should never be tolerated in a civilized culture. When I hear of an officer killed in the line of duty, my reaction is sympathy and appreciation for the officer's sacrifice. Criticizing or blaming an innocent officer for her own death would be vulgar and repulsive.

That Black Lives Matter is in dispute. Black people are being shot to death while shopping, or playing in a park, or seeking assistance for a broken down vehicle. Video evidence of innocent, unarmed, black people being shot to death is somehow met by otherwise moral people with complete indifference. Worse yet, these otherwise moral people blame the victims and become enraged when black people complain.

No one believes that all or most police officers are bad apples. On the contrary, most people appreciate law enforcement. However, just as a teacher, truck driver, or bricklayer must be prosecuted for criminal behavior, so must police officers.

Like teachers, police officers receive low pay for an extremely responsible job. Unlike teachers, police officers must be prepared to manage life and death situations on a regular basis. Also unlike teachers, who must complete a Bachelor's degree and an internship to be certified, basic law enforcement training in NC requires only a HS diploma or GED and 620 hours of training. To put that in perspective, cosmetologists must complete 1500 hours of training to be licensed in NC.

Innocent American citizens are being killed by police officers on a regular basis. Instead of black people, imagine if these executions were being perpetrated against people with blue eyes. Because a 12-year-old in a park had blue eyes, police felt threatened and shot him to death. Because a stalled motorist had blue eyes, police shot him to death as he held his hands in the air. Because a father had blue eyes, police shot him to death in Walmart when he picked up a toy gun to buy for his kid's birthday.

For any moral patriot, shock and outrage should be the appropriate responses to

these events. This is not an issue that should be debated. It is an issue requiring immediate action! How could anyone think otherwise!? Accountability and increased training are obvious places to start.

Why Government should NOT be run like a Business

I think this conclusion should be a no-brainer for anyone who takes the time to think about it. What is the primary function of business? On the most basic level, the function of business is to generate profit. Profit is good and necessary for any successful business. But, profit is a motive without conscience. When profit is the guiding force, higher human motives such as patriotism, fairness, social responsibility, loyalty, honesty, generosity, and kindness become subordinate.

What is the primary function of government? The function of government is to serve the citizenry. The US Constitution articulates this purpose very eloquently: "establish Justice (fairness), ensure domestic Tranquility (peace), provide for the common defense (protection), promote the general Welfare (social responsibility), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity (protect the rights and freedoms of current and future generations of American citizens)."

Consider a hypothetical individual, modeled after business, who is motivated by personal profit to the exclusion of all other influences. This individual would be characterized as a sociopath and government would be charged with protecting the populous from him/her.

Now, consider a hypothetical individual, modeled after government, whose dominant motivators in life are to stand up for people who are being treated unfairly, to maintain social harmony, to protect those who are in danger, to share with those who are in need, and to support the freedoms and rights of all people. This person would be characterized as a hero.

Running government like a business is not just a bad idea. It is an immoral one. Government protects society by enforcing laws and regulations that restrict individual citizens and businesses from engaging in behaviors that harm others. This must be accomplished while ensuring that the liberties of each individual are protected and that there is a level playing field for the free market. 

This is not rocket science. When one’s moral compass is not compromised by base motives (greed, bigotry, selfishness, arrogance, clannishness, indifference to the suffering of others, cruelty, etc.), direction becomes clear and obvious.