Hacker News Reader

Comment by 082349872349872 | Hacker News Reader

See https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-51653-z/tables/2

There's still plenty of friction on this slope.

I saw. Just because conspiracy theories aren't well-formed sentences in the logical manner, doesn't mean they don't represent valid values and principles. This resistance to change is societally purposeful, Ethos Pathos and Logos is required for a convincing movement, and a few people immune to Logos provide the natural resistance in the form of gravel to an increasingly mechanised logical political motor. Conspiracy theorists in this manner provide a natural resistance just by existing, to dehumanising mechanisation of political movements. Their existence can prevent changes from going too far, in a dampening matter a la differential equations. If we learn to untangle these beliefs easily, it's like driving a car with no shock absorbers, might get too bumpy and damage the car.

In a world of hot takes, this certainly is one of them.

I miss the n-gate guy.

Or shortly put, even a broken clock is right twice a day. However, this doesn't make the clock any less broken.

Progress is like an old car. It takes a crank to get things started (Spike Milligan)

Protip: hold the crank with your palm facing up...

They really don't. In fact, conspiracy theorists often have the opposite effect.

When an idea sounds vaguelly conspirational, it can lose credibility just by association of ideas.

Conspiracy theorists have had a paradoxical chilling effect on whisteblowers, who would have a hard time even using the word "conspiracy" without coming accross as deeply unserious paranoiacs.

I guess there’s a balance to be found, as in everything.

I think both Freud and Jung would very much agree that irrational discontent is a valuable regulator.

There's nothing obvious in casual observation of conspiracy theories that would point to a helpful bias towards resisting trends. The content and suggested emotional state of conspiracy theories often suck to the point of leading individuals to hell. We already have various forms of conservatism in all societies, and that looks far more like an appealing story of adding friction to change in a politically plural society.

If you have a family member stewing in this world, I don't think a framing of health is the right one.

Yes, take care of family members and change lives for the better where you can. Some places you can't, some places can't be reached. Whether they are healthy or not they play a role, a type of diversity if you will.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com