this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2024
20 points (100.0% liked)
Science Communication
871 readers
3 users here now
Welcome to c/SciComm @ Mander.xyz!
Science Communication
Notice Board
This is a work in progress, please don't mind the mess.
- 2023-06-14: We are looking for mods. Send a dm to @[email protected] if interested!
About
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Be kind and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
Resources
Outreach:
Networking:
Similar Communities
Sister Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
Plants & Gardening
Physical Sciences
Humanities and Social Sciences
Memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Amusingly enough, I would tend to think that the desire to ascribe belief in conspiracy theories to some specific and limited set of nominal causes is actually an example of the same sort of thinking that leads to belief in conspiracy theories in the first place. It's trying to stuff some inherently very complex and nuanced dynamic into a simple, one-size-fits-all box.
But the study, apparently, did not fall into that trap: “I was surprised by the fact that about 90% of the variables assessed significantly predicted conspiracy belief (of 52 variables). These results point to conspiracy belief being even more psychologically complex than I initially presumed,” Bowes told PsyPost.
That quote actually supports my point.
Exactly what is being said there is that the researchers did fall into just the trap I'm talking about, then were "surprised" when the study demonstrated that the matter was more complex and nuanced than they expected.