Interesting find... unusual place!

[CMD]

"This becomes a study in its own right of sheer, obstinate, unquestioning belief that "conspiracy nuts" are loons in the face of open admissions that the contrary is actually the case E.g.,"

I have the tendency to get ponderous, and don't want that to happen. Yes, you could be one subject in a study of the rise of conspiracy thinking in the modern era, and in particular, popular American culture. But, rather then see you as a "nut", I would look for the particulars in your life, and in the greater culture, that led, that might have played a role, in leading you to believe in a conspiracy to hide the existence of a race of giants in America's past. In this thread, I just tried to point out my belief that there is an eruption of irrational thinking in pop culture, in the form of conspiracy theory, and I am very interested, in a capacity of a social scientist, in knowing why, in illuminating the causes for this on the greater cultural level. Where you yourself is concerned, I don't know the particulars that led to this belief. Obviously, you will be very confident in saying "I got to this point because it's the truth." If I lump you into a cultural phenomenon, the rise and predominance of conspiracy-centric interpretations of reality, in some manner unfairly because the facts would reveal this conspiracy is in fact 100% real, and amateur is very much onto something we all need to know, then everything I said probably does not apply to you, in particular. Or the belief in giants, in particular.

No, I don't see you as a "conspiracy nut". I am not trying to promote a "belief" that we don't have to look at the particulars of any one conspiracy to judge it's credibility. As far as I could see, you and painshill were discussing that credibility before I brought up the subject of conspiracy thinking in general. I think it is highly relevant, because your position is indeed one of distrust toward authority in archaeology. And distrust in authority is at the root of the rise of conspiracy-centric thinking where interpreting the real world and received wisdom in our historical narratives are concerned. So, as noted, the social scientist in me saw this dynamic of "distrust in defenders of a paradigm/development of a belief in ancient giants" as part of the general development of conspiracy-centric thinking.
Which I may in fact believe without also believing you are a "conspiracy nut." I am indeed looking for as nuanced an understanding of conspiracy thought in the modern era as I can develop. But if I thought it was all just a matter of "they are all just nuts", then, really, there would be no reason to ask the questions I ask. I could just say, well, this is for a psychiatrist to unravel, not a social scientist. I am not saying conspiracy thought is some kind of mental illness. But, that there are developments in society over the last 60 some years that has led to a, to me stunning, rise in conspiracy-centric interpretations of reality, is something I think is undeniable. But it really is the subject of another thread altogether. Otherwise, my comments will grow ponderous for sure. It deserves a book, not a thread.

[amateur]

Lots of food for thought in what you write, CMD. For which I sincerely thank you, because the effort involved in formulating responses to you (and to Painshill) is provoking a lot of good mental exercise on this end.

What I was getting at was the stereotypical way "conspiracy thinking" is characterized -- as if "conspiracy thinkers" were all examples of Eric Hoffer's famous "True Believer" -- not the way you approach it.

Like you, I am deeply interested in the matter as it presents itself in the world of flesh-and-blood reality. We differ, I think, in that you approach it as a curious aberration that shows up in people who are otherwise "normal" (senu stricto) -- as an interesting quirk in them at variance to the social consensus. I don't know if it can be understood that way (and suspect it can't be), because the interrelated set of background assumptions (the "norm") against which you view it and base your comparison is itself gravely skewed.

As I see it, it is the abnormalcy of the norm that deserves attention, in that the more people "learned incapacity" to recognise the way they are being manipulated and oppose it can be established in, the smoother the sailing for the forces reliant on it (ref. Rockefeller's admission). Establishing this has been the singleminded ambition of the manipulators for decades -- no longer just the swaying of "public opinion" to gain momentary support for something abhorrent to them (vide America's entry into WW I), but as a cradle-to-grave replacement of their own inborn sense of reality and of right. As I think a recent film presented it, a "Matrix" of instilled assumptions and beliefs in which the entire lives of people, via operant conditioning, are a lifelong post-hypnotic suggestion, continually refreshed. A few gems of cynical honesty in support :

"News is what someone wants to suppress. Everything else is advertising." -- former NBC news President Rubin Frank

"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." -- Richard Salent, Former President CBS News.

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people believe is false.” -William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Our response to this has certainly been along the lines of Orwell's Doublethink. We process the information involved, and may even acknowledge its validity. But we file it away in a watertight compartment where it is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant.

Ultimately, I suspect we are trying to make something work we are capable of but aren't suited to -- acting out a script written for imaginary beings who do not function the way actual people do, like dogs who have been trained to walk upright on their hind legs, and to regard this as normal. They can do it, but it's hard on their joints and, ultimately, they're injured by it. We don't base our expectations on actual human nature. Rather, we take it as raw material (and the cheapest raw material of all, in that it's self-supporting and replaces itself) for schemes that require people to behave (even believe) in violation of it. One example I've mentioned is that, while we are capable of being sufficiently objective to "do" science, we are hardwired to operate in belief mode, and as a pack. Which is "why," for one thing (if circular reasoning is admissible), what begins as discussion of objective differences in archaeology commonly deteriorate into troops of baboons flinging poo at each other. That is not "human nature." There's nothing about it deserving the term "human" at all.

As for what the alternative might be (or involve), FWIW (assuming anything), the older I get, the more this man makes solid sense :

http://www.sott.net/article/299296-P...ussian-thought

[amateur]

An afterthought is that, if you're looking at what goes into the growth of the "conspiratorial mindset," you might factor in people's gradually dawning awareness that the major media are doing exactly that to them, as evidenced in steadily declining trust levels in it, and it being increasingly replaced by internet blogs which reflect this awareness.

FWIW

[CMD]

"Like you, I am deeply interested in the matter as it presents itself in the world of flesh-and-blood reality. We differ, I think, in that you approach it as a curious aberration that shows up in people who are otherwise "normal" (senu stricto) -- as an interesting quirk in them at variance to the social consensus. I don't know if it can be understood that way (and suspect it can't be), because the interrelated set of background assumptions (the "norm") against which you view it and base your comparison is itself gravely skewed."

Obviously, this conversation cannot be continued, but just want to respond to the above. No, I see conspiracy thinking predominating nowadays because there is something lacking in people's lives. Conspiracy theories are fulfilling a need of some sort. I do not see it as a "quirk" in people. It is arising from fundamental need, not as quirks in individuals. No, there is a much more fundamental reason(s) for the enormous popularity of conspiracy thinking in American pop culture. And it is proving extremely difficult to put my finger on exactly why this is happening. There is no doubt in my mind that these conspiracy theories do overlay order upon the world. They do allow individuals to have, as I stated earlier, that "aha" moment, where they feel the world is more understandable. More sinister at the same time perhaps, but it allows a certain understanding of what's going on in the world to emerge. I suspect finding that meaning has something to do with the needs that are being met by conspiracy mindsets. But I am far from understanding this phenomenon to the degree where I have my own "aha" moment. I am living at the present time. Nothing is more difficult then being able to extract oneself from one's own culture to a degree that allows for clear vision of the age one is living in. Standing outside one's own time to judge it is very, very difficult. But that is what I am always trying to do. It just is not possible to a perfect degree. But this phenomenon is no quirk. It is fundamental to the age we live in, and that is what I wish to understand better.

It's a shame you could not remove your inappropriate comments when you were asked. In that other thread. In fact, I do appreciate you "forcing" me to refine my thoughts as well. It was well worth my time and effort. So, if you read this, just clarifying that I can't agree with how you describe our differences above. And hope I've at least done that much here.

[LucasBMylks]

Lovely picture of your rock Roger