Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning - Could this be the primary difference between "Conspiracy Theorists" and Mainstream Consensus Wonks? [638x479 - 62KB]

663

•

Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning - Could this be the primary difference between "Conspiracy Theorists" and Mainstream Consensus Wonks? [638x479 - 62KB] (pic8.co)

Then it hit me, the way many logical and intelligent so-called "Conspiracy Theorists" think is similar to the way Sherlock Holmes conducts investigations. He uses Inductive Reasoning.

Under Inductive Reasoning, the investigator collects all of the information constantly and stores it away for later. The more information that is fed into the mind, the more it can be sorted, compared and contrasted, and filtered. All of the baseless crap and junk becomes filtered out, and all of the viable and logical theories are retained. Slowly, over time, connections are made. One bit of information from 2 years ago gets cross referenced with another bit of new information.

Overall this process of mentally sorting out this information is completely internal. So all the wonks see is that we suddenly have a conclusion, and they can't see the mental process that brought us to that conclusion. They just see a conclusion with no logic because they use deductive reasoning which only holds on to established facts, usually concluded by mainstream sources.

So when we share our findings with people who accuse us of being "Conspiracy Theorists," perhaps we need to also share all of the various sources that we've cross referenced, almost go back and trace all of the mental work that led us to arrive to those conclusions. Perhaps we can wake more people up this way, by considering that we have a unique way of sorting through information.

This is what Sherlock Holmes did at the end of every investigation. "The Killer was John Doe." Everyone around him thought he was crazy for accusing this person, so Sherlock then had to give them a full summary of how he arrived at that conclusion. That was always the end of every investigation - explanation. And that's what we have to do.

The main obstacle to this is that:

We don't have the established credibility of Sherlock Holmes.

and

People of 2021 don't have the attention span, the time, and the receptivity to actually listen to this explanation. They are more interested in speaking their own mind than listening.

So we are always going to be up against these two main obstacles. I don't know if there is an easy answer to how we can influence the people in our communities by overcoming these obstacles. Visual graphics are definitely a good medium. People are more likely to listen to something that is visual and simple to follow. They are less likely to listen to a vocalized lecture about it. So presentation matters. Simplifying matters.

As far as credibility goes, the way to overcome this obstacle is to put emotions aside. Put subjectivity aside. Present yourself as purely scientific (because as investigators that's what we are - scientists at heart), and always be composed. When you are laughed at, maintain your composure and never become visibly offended. Over time, it will become apparent that the less-credible people are the ones who are laughing like hyenas while the more credible are those with the strong and composed demeanor.

This is the way forward for many of us on Poal. Many of us are investigators, lie detectors, always gathering and sorting information. Unfortunately our weakness is the organization and presentation of that information to others. Unless we want to forever be an echo chamber here, we will need to get out of our comfort zones and go out into the world. This is what we were born for in this world.

I was thinking about how I try to explain the way my mind works to people who are logical, yet they don't understand how I arrive at my conclusions based on a collection of numerous observations and research. Then it hit me, the way many logical and intelligent so-called "Conspiracy Theorists" think is similar to the way Sherlock Holmes conducts investigations. He uses Inductive Reasoning. Under Inductive Reasoning, the investigator collects all of the information constantly and stores it away for later. The more information that is fed into the mind, the more it can be sorted, compared and contrasted, and filtered. All of the baseless crap and junk becomes filtered out, and all of the viable and logical theories are retained. Slowly, over time, connections are made. One bit of information from 2 years ago gets cross referenced with another bit of new information. Overall this process of mentally sorting out this information is completely internal. So all the wonks see is that we suddenly have a conclusion, and they can't see the mental process that brought us to that conclusion. They just see a conclusion with no logic because they use deductive reasoning which only holds on to established facts, usually concluded by mainstream sources. So when we share our findings with people who accuse us of being "Conspiracy Theorists," perhaps we need to also share all of the various sources that we've cross referenced, almost go back and trace all of the mental work that led us to arrive to those conclusions. Perhaps we can wake more people up this way, by considering that we have a unique way of sorting through information. This is what Sherlock Holmes did at the end of every investigation. "The Killer was John Doe." Everyone around him thought he was crazy for accusing this person, so Sherlock then had to give them a full summary of how he arrived at that conclusion. That was always the end of every investigation - explanation. And that's what we have to do. The main obstacle to this is that: 1. We don't have the established credibility of Sherlock Holmes. and 2. People of 2021 don't have the attention span, the time, and the receptivity to actually listen to this explanation. They are more interested in speaking their own mind than listening. So we are always going to be up against these two main obstacles. I don't know if there is an easy answer to how we can influence the people in our communities by overcoming these obstacles. Visual graphics are definitely a good medium. People are more likely to listen to something that is visual and simple to follow. They are less likely to listen to a vocalized lecture about it. So presentation matters. Simplifying matters. As far as credibility goes, the way to overcome this obstacle is to put emotions aside. Put subjectivity aside. Present yourself as purely scientific (because as investigators that's what we are - scientists at heart), and always be composed. When you are laughed at, maintain your composure and never become visibly offended. Over time, it will become apparent that the less-credible people are the ones who are laughing like hyenas while the more credible are those with the strong and composed demeanor. This is the way forward for many of us on Poal. Many of us are investigators, lie detectors, always gathering and sorting information. Unfortunately our weakness is the organization and presentation of that information to others. Unless we want to forever be an echo chamber here, we will need to get out of our comfort zones and go out into the world. This is what we were born for in this world.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Use both. If it is right to do so for you. Your realm is subject to the law of polarity. Your question is like... on a battery should I use the negative pole or the positive pole? You use both dammit. Just use the battery. Should I use left brain thinking or right brain thinking? Use both. Use all of the brain.

People who are driven by emotions you speak to their emotions if you want any kind of influence. You can't say hey I'm going to influence you in a meaningful way and you are going to accept whatever delivery I give you. You open a conversation and see where their lines are.

If you set up the conversation to be laughed at you aren't getting through. I always make fun of conspiracy theorists and get people laughing, then you can say as stupid as they are... I went on a binge and fuck... wouldn't it be crazy if this were true???

Stop seeing lay people as us and them. There is you. Then your family. Then your community. They are apart of you. You have very few enemies. You just need to realize who they are. See them as enemy and also understand someone can say omg Obama was the best president isn't an enemy, its clear they don't think for themselves. You can respond with yeah those Obama Biden memes were funny... but I can't really get behind what he did in Iraq... murdering 5% of a countries population is pretty fucked.

He's the bad man not you or the other person. No I know people here have an opinion that 5% wasn't enough, but the goal is to be seen as person who turns over the rotten log just to see whats under it. If you are trusted and respectful to your community you will have the same thing that happened to me when the capitol was stormed. I got texts wtf man. You see this? At that moment I could say the media will use this to try and destroy the reputation of the 80 mil that voted for him. Look for signs on social media that they were let in. Or this was planned by the swamp people.

(post is archived)