Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Four Fingers · 12-27-2003, 04:42 AM

Mike said, "Billy killed Candy."
Billy's prints were found on the murder weapon.

Given these facts, and assuming the standard assumptions about people and life, the simplest explanation of what had really happend is that Billy indeed killed Candy. Another posibility, though, is that Mike framed Billy, and then lied when he said that Billy had killed Candy. Of course, taking the prints on the weapon into account, this possibility is much less reasonable than the first one.

Now let's say we hate Mike because he runs a software monopoly. And let's say we love Billy, because he's very charismatic and he's always nice to us. It'd make us much happier if Mike turned out to be the killer, who framed Billy. Even though this possibility is less probable, we'd enjoy hearing about it, and in a sense, believing in it as well.

Whenever we'd find an article on the web, pointing out the possiblity that Mike lied, we'd rejoice, read it a couple of time, and then forward it to all of our friends. This happend because it makes us feel good to do so. When, in contrast, we'd come across an article presenting the more probable possiblity, we'd stop reading it in the middle and try to forget it. This happens because reading the article makes us feel bad.

Even though at first we would acknowledge that the second possibility is unlikely, slowly we'd start believing in it. Slowly, it'd become our default explanation to what happend when Candy died. And then, when Candy's friend would die, and Monty would be blamed for it, we'd say it was Mike again. After all, he's already killed Candy and blamed Billy for it, so it's pretty likely that he also killed her friend, and then framed Monty.

What happend here is that gradually we built a firm belief that Mike is an evil person, even though we were choosing the less likely possibilites everytime. We lied to ourselves, because it made us happier.

Now, isn't it possible and highly-feasable that a group of religiously fanatic people decided to attack those of other religions? Isn't it probably that it took advantage of the crappy security in airports, took over airplanes, and then crashed them into buildings? It's possible; it's probable; and it has happend before.

Interestingly, some people choose to believe the less-likely possiblity, that Bush and the CIA were behind the attacks. That somehow they tricked the entire world. People choose to belive that not fanaticism lead the events, but rather that a huge and complicated master-plan stood behind them.

Maybe, just maybe, this happens because they already dislike Bush, and it would make them happier to have Bush as the villain. What if Bush is really a great guy? What if some false assumptions assumed to make us happier, turned us against him - just a bit. But then, something else happend that made us hate him more. And slowly, we were certain that he is an evil man. Slowly, we followed the less likely path and formed a lie in our brain. We formed a false belief that Bush is not the great guy he really is.

When you watch Bowling for Columbine, do you enjoy it because the actual truth is exposed, or because you enjoy believing the certain truth that is shown? Why do you like conspiracy theories so much? Isn't the truth good enough for you?

Think about it.

12-27-2003, 04:42 AM	#1 (permalink)
Four Fingers Crazy	Forming False Beliefs Mike said, "Billy killed Candy." Billy's prints were found on the murder weapon. Given these facts, and assuming the standard assumptions about people and life, the simplest explanation of what had really happend is that Billy indeed killed Candy. Another posibility, though, is that Mike framed Billy, and then lied when he said that Billy had killed Candy. Of course, taking the prints on the weapon into account, this possibility is much less reasonable than the first one. Now let's say we hate Mike because he runs a software monopoly. And let's say we love Billy, because he's very charismatic and he's always nice to us. It'd make us much happier if Mike turned out to be the killer, who framed Billy. Even though this possibility is less probable, we'd enjoy hearing about it, and in a sense, believing in it as well. Whenever we'd find an article on the web, pointing out the possiblity that Mike lied, we'd rejoice, read it a couple of time, and then forward it to all of our friends. This happend because it makes us feel good to do so. When, in contrast, we'd come across an article presenting the more probable possiblity, we'd stop reading it in the middle and try to forget it. This happens because reading the article makes us feel bad. Even though at first we would acknowledge that the second possibility is unlikely, slowly we'd start believing in it. Slowly, it'd become our default explanation to what happend when Candy died. And then, when Candy's friend would die, and Monty would be blamed for it, we'd say it was Mike again. After all, he's already killed Candy and blamed Billy for it, so it's pretty likely that he also killed her friend, and then framed Monty. What happend here is that gradually we built a firm belief that Mike is an evil person, even though we were choosing the less likely possibilites everytime. We lied to ourselves, because it made us happier. Now, isn't it possible and highly-feasable that a group of religiously fanatic people decided to attack those of other religions? Isn't it probably that it took advantage of the crappy security in airports, took over airplanes, and then crashed them into buildings? It's possible; it's probable; and it has happend before. Interestingly, some people choose to believe the less-likely possiblity, that Bush and the CIA were behind the attacks. That somehow they tricked the entire world. People choose to belive that not fanaticism lead the events, but rather that a huge and complicated master-plan stood behind them. Maybe, just maybe, this happens because they already dislike Bush, and it would make them happier to have Bush as the villain. What if Bush is really a great guy? What if some false assumptions assumed to make us happier, turned us against him - just a bit. But then, something else happend that made us hate him more. And slowly, we were certain that he is an evil man. Slowly, we followed the less likely path and formed a lie in our brain. We formed a false belief that Bush is not the great guy he really is. When you watch Bowling for Columbine, do you enjoy it because the actual truth is exposed, or because you enjoy believing the certain truth that is shown? Why do you like conspiracy theories so much? Isn't the truth good enough for you? Think about it. __________________ "Always do right - this will gratify some and astonish the rest."