Secretive Behavior and Conspiracy Theories

Scott DeWar · Oct 7, 2012

Having a military background, and having (as a civilian) shot different types of ammo even from the same gun, I can tell you that there are different reactions to trajectory of a bullet as per the type that it is. A copper clad bullet will travel further then a semi-wadcutter hollow point. Train on the bullet type you want to use in your line of work, be it guard for a bank or guard in the military.

Olgar Shiverstone · Oct 7, 2012

Janx said:
In general, I'm skeptical of large organizations being able to pull of large screw jobs of society like a coup. I suppose it's possible, lots of people helped Hitler, the Manhattan project was apparently pretty well kept, and Apple does a fairly good job of keeping their new iPhone's secret. But then, there's also leaks. We did KNOW what Hitler was doing. At least 2 of the Apple rumors were correct.

I work for the government. If there's anyone capable of pulling off a vast government conspiracy, well, it's not us.

Of course, that's what you'd expect us to say. :devil:

Lwaxy · Oct 8, 2012

Janx said:
Basically, when you're given an explanation backed with facts, you're more likely to acccept the explanation. After all, it has facts, that you can check.

Having followed a forum full of conspiracy theorists just for the fun of it for over a year, I believe with most of those people no amount of facts can make them get a better perspective on matters. It's like they want their theories to be true.

and Apple does a fairly good job of keeping their new iPhone's secret

Didn't they lose their latest models in public places at least twice?

Olgar Shiverstone · Oct 8, 2012

Lwaxy said:
Having followed a forum full of conspiracy theorists just for the fun of it for over a year, I believe with most of those people no amount of facts can make them get a better perspective on matters. It's like they want their theories to be true.

As someone smarter than me once said: "People won't be convinced by logic to change a position they didn't use logic to arrive at in the first place."

ggroy · Oct 8, 2012

Olgar Shiverstone said:
As someone smarter than me once said: "People won't be convinced by logic to change a position they didn't use logic to arrive at in the first place."

This isn't always the case either.

In practice the older someone is, the harder it is to change their minds on anything, regardless of logic, emotion, intimidation, etc ...

Not surprising that advertisers and propaganda makers, are mainly interested in teenagers and young adults. Young people's minds are not made up yet. By the time someone is over age 30 or so, it seems to be largely pointless to try changing their minds on anything.

Janx · Oct 8, 2012

Lwaxy said:
Having followed a forum full of conspiracy theorists just for the fun of it for over a year, I believe with most of those people no amount of facts can make them get a better perspective on matters. It's like they want their theories to be true.



Didn't they lose their latest models in public places at least twice?

I think you misunderstood my statement, based on the example and context.

When a crazy guy reads a fact, and then writes an explanation that is wrong, another person who isn't yet crazy, but also not quite right, will read it, see the fact, and since the foundation is sound (it has a fact!) they assume the rest is reasoning.

As they've found the religion gene, perhaps they can also find the crackpot theory acceptance gene.

ggroy · Oct 8, 2012

Janx said:
When a crazy guy reads a fact, and then writes an explanation that is wrong, another person who isn't yet crazy, but also not quite right, will read it, see the fact, and since the foundation is sound (it has a fact!) they assume the rest is reasoning.

I suspect the only people that will be swayed by such "reasoning", would be people who already believe (or want to believe) such "facts" and "reasoning" (whether real or perceived).

In general, most people tend to look for "facts" and "reasoning" (whether real or imagined) which conforms already to what they believe a priori, while mentally discarding facts and reasoning which do not conform to what they believe (or what they want to believe).

This is better known as the "confirmation bias".

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Janx said:
As they've found the religion gene, perhaps they can also find the crackpot theory acceptance gene.

This may very well be an extreme exaggerated form of the notion that older people's minds are difficult to change (whether by external sources or by one's own will).

Janx · Oct 9, 2012

ggroy said:
I suspect the only people that will be swayed by such "reasoning", would be people who already believe (or want to believe) such "facts" and "reasoning" (whether real or perceived).

In general, most people tend to look for "facts" and "reasoning" (whether real or imagined) which conforms already to what they believe a priori, while mentally discarding facts and reasoning which do not conform to what they believe (or what they want to believe).

This is better known as the "confirmation bias".

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This may very well be an extreme exaggerated form of the notion that older people's minds are difficult to change (whether by external sources or by one's own will).

On confirmation bias, I suspect there are "undecided" people who don't know the theory, but are predisposed to believing it once heard, or predisposed to disbelieving it.

Much like the religion gene. Folks with it are more likely to believe in a deity, and see certain events as holy (like surviving an accident). Whereas others just can't accept religion as plausible. Note, I'm not bashing religion here. There was some science last year or so that showed this. Based on genes or brain wiring, folks are predisposed to accept or reject certain ideas.

as for old people not changing their way, it's probably based on longevity of the idea being worn into their brain. An old person has idea X reinforced in his head for 50+ years. A young person has maybe had 10 years.

Neural network tends to path reinforcing. So if you hit a new decision branch unlike any ever seen before, it's like a coin toss on which way you will go. Once chosen (left or right), that choice earns a point. Everytime you have to make a decision, the evidence is reviewed, and the past points on the choice you made are applied as evidence. Which causesyou to decide again the same way as last time. and earning another point on that path.

As a result, a groove wears in that you'll have no choice but to keep picking the same path.

Now that's a pretty loose explanation of how neural networks work, which is not my specialty. But I've dabbled as a programmer and know more than my dog does on the subject.

But basically, an old guy has made the same choice for so long, his neural network won't let him choose something else with out some new factor to manipulate the trickle through effect of the decision.

ggroy · Oct 9, 2012

Janx said:
As a result, a groove wears in that you'll have no choice but to keep picking the same path.

...

But basically, an old guy has made the same choice for so long, his neural network won't let him choose something else with out some new factor to manipulate the trickle through effect of the decision.

Essentially it resembles an unconscious reflex.

Even if one has knowledge of such cognitive biases, it's actually not that easy to counter such biases whether by one's own sheer will or by actively paying conscious attention to such biases. (In practice, it is actually very difficult).

jonesy · Oct 11, 2012

Janx said:
Basically, when you're given an explanation backed with facts, you're more likely to acccept the explanation. After all, it has facts, that you can check.

[MENTION=5868]Olgar Shiverstone[/MENTION]'s explanation of actualy military consumption of ammo matches by guess of what it could mean. Basically, training. You'll probably use more ammo on the shooting range, than on the field, at least for folks NOT in an active combat situation.

Before I read this thread I was on YouTube watching a video of british tankers shooting large quantities of artillery rounds on a training ground. Why? Because the rounds were reaching their 'use before' date, and they were getting new ones anyway. Better to spend the old rounds for training than get rid of them.

Makes one wonder what portion of rounds gets 'wasted' like that in training.