> ... [various debunked predictions] led to the general impression that the entire episode was an elaborate hoax.
Whereas this
> by a poster claiming to be an American military time traveler from 2036.
Wasn’t the thing. Could be everyone was trolling but some of the commenters really seemed like true believers egged on by the trolls (kind of like flat earthers).
I just fundamentally don’t understand the level of gullibility involved that’s needed to buy into a story like that (like I get it exists but I just can’t understand the mentality that leads there). It’s also likely why astrology, religion, and wild unbelievable conspiracy theories take hold in our society (I like my conspiracy theories to have what I consider a more plausible down-to-earth premise).
I wonder what the evolutionary advantage there is for the duality in society. Is it really just as simple that the primitive “what if it could be true” is good for helping you avoid danger and the “that’s not a plausible line of thinking” helping better locate real world opportunities are the two engines for our success as a species? And that the misapplication is just a trait that’s not useful in a comparatively peaceful time (and the tension ironically brings about the reduction of peace time?).
It isn’t a matter of some people being gullible and others aren’t, everyone is gullible in this sense but a lot depends on prior experience, knowledge, peer groups and a lot of other factors. Trolls and conmen play a big part in building a cohesive narrative for fun and profit. People who are looking for a community gravitate to things like this and are easily influenced due to their lack of a counter balancing force in their lives (friends, community, work, faith, etc.). It becomes the thing they live for, part of the story of their life and a framework they use to understand the world. The scary thing is a lot of the world works this way and only varies in quality and pervasiveness. It’s the air we breath so it’s hard to get perspective on. How can you know for sure that something is true if it is beyond your means to verify? You have to appeal to authority or the majority. We do this with practically everything in our lives out of necessity, it’s impossible to vet everything. Most of it is valid and based on widely distributed independent verification. But there are messy areas where either this isn’t possible or where there is strong motivation to argue for a particular view. Politics and religion are pervaded by unverifiable claims and opinions. But it reaches into every aspect of life where there is uncertainty, money or an axe to grind.
> ... [various debunked predictions] led to the general impression that the entire episode was an elaborate hoax.
Whereas this
> by a poster claiming to be an American military time traveler from 2036.
Wasn’t the thing. Could be everyone was trolling but some of the commenters really seemed like true believers egged on by the trolls (kind of like flat earthers).
I just fundamentally don’t understand the level of gullibility involved that’s needed to buy into a story like that (like I get it exists but I just can’t understand the mentality that leads there). It’s also likely why astrology, religion, and wild unbelievable conspiracy theories take hold in our society (I like my conspiracy theories to have what I consider a more plausible down-to-earth premise).
I wonder what the evolutionary advantage there is for the duality in society. Is it really just as simple that the primitive “what if it could be true” is good for helping you avoid danger and the “that’s not a plausible line of thinking” helping better locate real world opportunities are the two engines for our success as a species? And that the misapplication is just a trait that’s not useful in a comparatively peaceful time (and the tension ironically brings about the reduction of peace time?).