It seems that people are more likely to believe conspiracy theories that already are in line with their worldview. This would be an example of confirmation bias, to an extent.
People are also more likely to believe a particular conspiracy theory if they hear it from someone whose opinion they already respect, or if many others in their social group believe such a theory.
I don’t believe rational decision-making plays much part in the acceptance of conspiracy theories. You note that only 6% of Americans believe that the moon landing was hoaxed, and consider that an example of a fringe theory. Note, however, that about a quarter of Russians and English people think the moon landing was hoaxed.
It seems that what’s considered fringe varies by population, and not necessarily by rationality or evidence. It makes me wonder if there are any theories believed by most Americans that are considered ridiculous elsewhere.
Your worldview and your choice of people whose opinion to respect don’t have to be selected rationally. I would argue, in fact, that a large proportion of people don’t choose these rationally.
An alarmingly large fraction of Americans believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago, a position that most people here would find irrational. This is a worldview that is most often acquired from one’s parents or from respected religious figures. Would such a worldview be considered to be rationally selected?
Other people hold the position that humans evolved from earlier primates over millions of years through evolution by natural selection. Many of these people don’t understand evolution well enough to hold it as a rational belief, and they may also have acquired this belief through their parents or other respected figures rather than by a reasoned analysis. I’ve been asked by someone who accepts evolution: “Wouldn’t it be great if humans would evolve wings! That would increase fitness, why doesn’t that happen?” [paraphrased]
I think it’s not controversial to say that peoples’ worldviews and authority figures are not selected rationally.
True, but the way they irrationally found those is what’s in error, not using them. This is sort of like having a bad prior and blaming Bayes’ Theorem.
It seems that people are more likely to believe conspiracy theories that already are in line with their worldview. This would be an example of confirmation bias, to an extent.
People are also more likely to believe a particular conspiracy theory if they hear it from someone whose opinion they already respect, or if many others in their social group believe such a theory.
I don’t believe rational decision-making plays much part in the acceptance of conspiracy theories. You note that only 6% of Americans believe that the moon landing was hoaxed, and consider that an example of a fringe theory. Note, however, that about a quarter of Russians and English people think the moon landing was hoaxed.
It seems that what’s considered fringe varies by population, and not necessarily by rationality or evidence. It makes me wonder if there are any theories believed by most Americans that are considered ridiculous elsewhere.
Something more in line with your worldview is more likely. This is the point of a worldview.
Someone whose opinion you respect is more likely to be right. This is the point of respecting people’s opinions.
What’s the irrational decision-making you’re alluding to?
Your worldview and your choice of people whose opinion to respect don’t have to be selected rationally. I would argue, in fact, that a large proportion of people don’t choose these rationally.
An alarmingly large fraction of Americans believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago, a position that most people here would find irrational. This is a worldview that is most often acquired from one’s parents or from respected religious figures. Would such a worldview be considered to be rationally selected?
Other people hold the position that humans evolved from earlier primates over millions of years through evolution by natural selection. Many of these people don’t understand evolution well enough to hold it as a rational belief, and they may also have acquired this belief through their parents or other respected figures rather than by a reasoned analysis. I’ve been asked by someone who accepts evolution: “Wouldn’t it be great if humans would evolve wings! That would increase fitness, why doesn’t that happen?” [paraphrased]
I think it’s not controversial to say that peoples’ worldviews and authority figures are not selected rationally.
True, but the way they irrationally found those is what’s in error, not using them. This is sort of like having a bad prior and blaming Bayes’ Theorem.