The Science of Conspiracy Theories And Political Polarization With Eric Oliver

“Birthers”, “Pizzagate”, anti-vaxxers-since the election of Donald Trump, it’s seemed that belief in conspiracy theories is on the rise. At the same time, our polarization is worse than ever. People can hardly even maintain a conversation across political or cultural lines. Could the underlying force driving conspiracy theories also be the same one that’s dividing our country?
University of Chicago Political Science Professor Eric Oliver, who’s been studying conspiracy theories for over a decade, says his research shows how one basic tension explains both belief in conspiracy theories and our political divide. Deeper than red or blue, liberal or conservative, we’re actually divided by intuitionists and rationalists.
Read the Full Story Here: news.uchicago.edu/podcasts/bi... to Big Brains on...
You Can Subscribe to Big Brains on...
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2ICJ51L
Google: bit.ly/3LUyuT6
Stitcher: bit.ly/BigBrainsStitcherYT
Spotify: bit.ly/BigBrainsSPTFYyt
Newsletter: eepurl.com/iiMiI5
***
➡ Subscribe to UChicago on KZbin: bit.ly/UCHICAGOytSubscribe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Get on the list: Subscribe to the Big Brains Insider newsletter for access to special behind-the-scenes content and get a bigger bite from every guest. eepurl.com/iiMiI5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About #UChicago:
Since its founding in 1890, the University of Chicago has been a destination for rigorous inquiry and field-defining research. This transformative academic experience empowers students and scholars to challenge conventional thinking in pursuit of original ideas.
#UChicago on the Web:
Home: bit.ly/UCHICAGO-homepage
News: bit.ly/UCHICAGO-news
Facebook: bit.ly/UCHICAGO-FB
Twitter: bit.ly/UCHICAGO-TW
Instagram: bit.ly/UCHICAGO-IG
University of Chicago on KZbin:
/ uchicago
***
ACCESSIBILITY: If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please email [e-mail].

[@UChicago]

Subscribe to the Big Brains Insider newsletter for access to special behind-the-scenes content and get a bigger bite from every guest. eepurl.com/iiMiI5

[@Conn30Mtenor]

Where "doing the research" is spending all your time on conspiracy websites.

[@svenm7264]

The Russian collusion conspiracy theory

[@GNMbg]

what got me out of conspiracy theories is common sense..

[@joshelon1840]

I would consider myself an intuitionist, I follow my intuition in business as an entrepreneur, and often times I can be very irrational, but, by those 3 questions he posed, I answered the rational answer for each one. So where does that put me on the scale? I believe to be effective human doings, we should have both an intuitive and rational mind. Sometimes being too rational hinders progress and creative problem solving. Sometimes being to intuitive means we internalize our experience with the outside world to a degree that we lose touch with reality.

[@kaimatsusaka7000]

Very well said, and I think that finding that balance is hard. But if one feels very uncertain then rationale should be chosen over intuition as a default.

[@chefkurr-]

I also think the questions he asked weren’t a very good way of determining who you are. It was pretty clear what he was doing,

[@ezioauditoredafirenze5453]

To me it just depends that on what things you are going in as a rationalistic and what things with intuition. Those things are normal things on different personality types. Everyone uses intuition and rationalism. It's just how much and on what situation.

[@kevinbaas6966]

The second question I answered putting the nickel in my mouth which was presumably the "intuitionist" answer -- which I had already figured out by then what the system was . But I arrived at it by reason: it is much faster and less effort to lick a nickel than to change clothes twice and whatever else is involved in getting and returning them. Weighted against the negligible risk of getting a virus by licking a nickel... just not worth the time. So I arrived at the presumably "intuitionist" answer by rational consideration.

[@Brugar18]

I guess those would you rather questions dont necesarily determine whether you're rationalist or intuitionalist, probably important to investigate why people chose one over another

[@dorothycronin3189]

The conclusion here is very similar to R.D. Laing’s work in “The Politics of Experience”.

[@ninirema4532]

Dear all great gentle All prof. very sweet good morning and very good keep in touch remember luck. हजुरहरू सबैलाई धेरै धन्यबाद छ।

[@bridgallagher479]

I'm a complete intuitionist but I don't believe in nonsense i. e: conspiracy theories. Not sure I agree with that theory being a factor. It is an interesting take on it though.

[@williamspringer9447]

Bríd Gallagher ••• WHO DECIDES WHICH ARGUMENTS ARE "CONSPIRACY THEORIES " AND WHICH AREN'T ? WHY CAN'T AN ARGUMENT BE DESCRIBED AS LOGICAL OR ILLOGICAL? ANSWER: BCAUSE THE SCIENCE OF CLASSICAL LOGIC HASN'T BEEN TAUGHT IN OUR STATE CONTROLLED PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY. THE UNDERGROUND HISTORY OF AMERICAN EDUCATION BY JOHN GATTO

[@timsanders9266]

I was going to say the same thing. From Haidt’s work, everyone is an intuitionist.

[@williamspringer9447]

jimmy••• Here is a cogent argument that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that man never walked on the Moon: •••• "Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one" -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 •••• "... why didn't the astronauts make some visible signal from the Moon? It would have been relatively easy to touch off some hypergolic chemicals, beam a laser to a mirror on Earth, create a pattern with lightweight black dust, or provide some other means of definitely proving that they were really there. Relying on an easily simulated picture on TV was the least reliable means of 'proof'." -Bill Kaysing, "We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle",1974, page 7 ••••••••• Just imagine a 100 foot diameter "A", written in light weight black dust, on the surface of the Moon for every school child to see, visible from their State's observatory ."A" for America or "A" for Apollo. •••••• And throughout all six of the supposedly successful missions to the Moon the astronauts never took any pictures of the stars. They could have filmed the Earth from the Moon with high resolution color film , showing the cities lit up at night, the Earth spinning , with atmosphere turning, orbiting brilliantly around the Sun ; possibly the most magnificent film footage ever taken . Instead, all of the pictures and film of the Earth were either of extremely poor resolution or easily reproducible with models and trick photography in a 1969 movie studio. •••••• What are the chances that some of the most brilliant scientists in the world , working for nearly a decade on the Moon landing, spending thirty billion 1969 dollars , and supposedly succeeding in landing on the Moon six times, would forget to produce any solid evidence that it ever happened? Let's say that there was a 1% chance of these geniuses forgetting to produce each of the five forms of solid evidence mentioned here (1. "A" on the Moon, 2. pictures of the stars, 3. Detailed colored film of the Earth, 4. laser from Moon to Earth, 5. Hypergolic explosion on Moon). I say that there is none, but just to be generous , let's say that there's a 1% chance. That's 100 × 100 × 100 × 100 × 100 to 1 against . Ten billion to one . But remember , they forgot six times in a row . That's ten billion to the sixth power to one against . That's sixty zeros . That's approximately The number of atoms thought to be in our solar system. The State executes men for DNA evidence , which is reliable to about one in a billion . That's the standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt to take a man's life in a court of law. Sixty zeros proves inductively, beyond a reasonable doubt, that man never walked on the Moon. ••••• "A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind." -L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 •••••••••• "Sotheby's has announced that it is putting up for auction moon rocks brought to Earth by an unmanned Soviet space mission in 1970 and expects they will sell for between $700,000 and $1 million. The rocks to be auctioned off in New York City on November 29 are the only known documented samples from the moon to be legally available for private ownership." -Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty ••••• "A team of physicists led by a professor at UC San Diego has pinpointed the location of a long lost light reflector left on the lunar surface by the Soviet Union nearly 40 years ago that many scientists had unsuccessfully searched for and never expected would be found. The French-built laser reflector was sent aboard the unmanned Luna 17 mission, which landed on the moon November 17, 1970, releasing a robotic rover that roamed the lunar surface and carried the missing laser reflector. The Soviet lander and its rover, called Lunokhod 1, were last heard from on September 14, 1971." - Science Daily

[@YouTubeWatcher9000]

It’s big brain time

[@seemabean1]

and here we are

[@brettknoss486]

Where do rationalism and intuitivism work in different contexts? For example, the role of markets, and restrictions on barriers to markets, compared to increasing funding for science?

[@haruhisuzumiya6650]

markets are tend to monopolize, laws that restrict market behaviour are created as a response to markets behaving badly.

[@ulfhenarpolymathmilitant6258]

@@haruhisuzumiya6650 can you show me an elite that has never had insider knowledge of what will happen in the market and didn't act accordingly to profit from such knowledge ? I know for a fact that you cannot muster up that info .

[@ulfhenarpolymathmilitant6258]

@brett knoss Science has become a new religion and now they use fear against the general public ..........do they not ?

[@teronjames7457]

University of Chicago....is this the best thing you people can do.....really

[@AntoDesormeaux]

Culturally we are lacking in intellectual humility, we are tending to try to immediately portray ourselves as intelligent and rational, and any opponents as stupid or depraved. Narcissism says I don't want to be wrong, I don't want to be humbled. We all have some of this. The decent scientist must be capable of saying, this contradictory evidence may be onto something. I must look into it and be prepared to be wrong. That is part of the scientific method, you have to try to prove your hypothesis wrong, NOT try to prove it right. We are TOO good at proving ourselves right thanks to confirmation bias. The procedural part of the scientific method really arms us with very potent tools to fight our natural biases, but we must also know ourselves. In that sense, people who are wiser are those who are emotionally strong enough to be capable of seeing themselves as possibly foolish, possibly wrong, and possibly bad - but ultimately, trying to see who they really are, and not who they want to think they are. It is the people who are most certain of their superior intellect and rationality that are often emotionally the weakest, and then we are back to narcissism. Narcissism brings the desire to never be wrong or to blame, even when we are. Everybody has biases built to accommodate the operative system that we built as we developed, so to speak. With each bias, each wound and vulnerability that you manage to identify, you have another tool to fight your cognitive errors - but to see it, you must first conceive of the possibility that it is there, and that you never stop getting to know yourself. I think Daniel Kahneman is refreshingly good at this and has a lot to teach about it, if he could write a book concise and entertaining enough for the general public.

[@billkeon880]

The thing that got me out of the one major conspiracy theory I bought into (JFK) was 1 being ridiculed and 2 evidence. No one need to say there, there I acknowledge your emotions.

[@AntoDesormeaux]

good for you, not everyone has the intellectual humility to change their mind when faced with contradictory evidence

[@billkeon880]

@@williamwhitten7820 if you want, I could spend over 100 hours and lay out the case, but I'm not going to. Read the entire HSCA report which confirms the Warren report. I'll give you a short list of about 10 books so you can do the work yourself. I owned and read over 25 conspiracy books for 30 years when I believed a conspiracy, but never read even one counter argument until 6 years ago. Here you are.... Vincent Bugliosi: Reclaiming History Gerald Posner: Case Closed…there is a free audiobook version on youtube Larry Sturdivan: JFK Myths (ballistics evidence) Dale Myers: With Malice (Tippit) Patricia Lambert: False Witness (Garrison case) - a youtube documentary John McAdams: JFK Logic (psychology, eye-witnesses) Gary Savage: JFK, First Day Evidence Howard Willens: History Will Prove Us Right (inside the Warren Commission) Norman Mailer: Oswald’s Tale Priscilla Johnson McMillan: Marina and Lee Oswald’s Game - Jean Davidson Warren Report HSCA Report (both of these later reports are available in all libraries around the world.)

[@billkeon880]

@@williamwhitten7820 yeah, no I've probably done more reading and research than most. In 1986 I bought Jim Marrs' crossfire and have read it 3-4 times since cover to cover. That got me on the road well before Oliver Stone got to me. By Stone's movie in 1992 my library had grown and until 2016 I owned over 25 pro-conspiracy books and read most of them multiple times. I own and have watched The Men Who Killed Kennedy (the uncensored version, pre-Johnson family litigation with Barr McLellan and Judith Vary Baker material). I got Fletcher Prouty's CD-ROM, countless other documentaries etc etc etc. But what bothered me were a number of arguments my side was making. Like the badgeman photo enhancement and a bunch of other embarrasing things that didn't add up (the more you blow up a photo, the more grainy and poor quality you get...you don't get better accuracy. After that you are just doing a Rorshack test, seeing what you want in the image). I would say I was 9/10 into it, always saying if you can prove it wrong and lay out the evidence I'll change my mind. Michael Shermer made some arguments about the JFK case regarding the philosophy of science methods and mistakes that conspiracy theorists make and that started me reading other authors. I've probably read 2-3 times as much of the pro-conspiracy side (so I know the arguments well) and the counter argument just destroys the notion of a conspiracy. It's not just the facts of the case (unless you dismiss autopsy, official investigations out of hand) it's the implausibility of it as well, which was one of Shermer's great points. Oliver stone (I saw the movie 3 times in theatres when it opened) was on his media tour in '92 and said famously it's a counter-myth to the WC myth. Well, that's not a good start. But he said there only needed to be a few people involved in a conspiracy like that and his critics were saying there neeede to be a vast conspiracy, which stone dismissed. He's wrong upon reflection. Just as you'd have to be wrong about LHO as a patsy.

[@billkeon880]

@@williamwhitten7820 there goes the conspiracy cherry-picking. The HSCA was set to conclude virtually every conclusion of the WR (autopsy, ballistic evidence, virtaully the whole thing, but with better more up to date methods for the camera, spectral analysis of the bullet etc) but at the 11th hour the acoustic 'evidence' came in and they made a poor decision to include it. That was what forced them to conclude a 4th shot. Otherwise it would have been a virtual carbon copy of WR. Then a few years later the acoustics were proven to be from a police bike situated at the Trade Mart, not from the Plaza. The HSCA confirms the lone shooter Oswald.

[@billkeon880]

@@williamwhitten7820 yeah, no I've probably done more reading and research than most. In 1986 I bought Jim Marrs' crossfire and have read it 3-4 times since cover to cover. That got me on the road well before Oliver Stone got to me. By Stone's movie in 1992 my library had grown and until 2016 I owned over 25 pro-conspiracy books and read most of them multiple times. I own and have watched The Men Who Killed Kennedy (the uncensored version, pre-Johnson family litigation with Barr McLellan and Judith Vary Baker material). I got Fletcher Prouty's CD-ROM, countless other documentaries etc etc etc. But what bothered me were a number of arguments my side was making. Like the badgeman photo enhancement and a bunch of other embarrasing things that didn't add up (the more you blow up a photo, the more grainy and poor quality you get...you don't get better accuracy. After that you are just doing a Rorshack test, seeing what you want in the image). I would say I was 9/10 into it, always saying if you can prove it wrong and lay out the evidence I'll change my mind. Michael Shermer made some arguments about the JFK case regarding the philosophy of science methods and mistakes that conspiracy theorists make and that started me reading other authors. I've probably read 2-3 times as much of the pro-conspiracy side (so I know the arguments well) and the counter argument just destroys the notion of a conspiracy. It's not just the facts of the case (unless you dismiss autopsy, official investigations out of hand) it's the implausibility of it as well, which was one of Shermer's great points. Oliver stone (I saw the movie 3 times in theatres when it opened) was on his media tour in '92 and said famously it's a counter-myth to the WC myth. Well, that's not a good start. But he said there only needed to be a few people involved in a conspiracy like that and his critics were saying there neeede to be a vast conspiracy, which stone dismissed. He's wrong upon reflection. Just as you'd have to be wrong about LHO as a patsy.

[@AJ-gc5mp]

Intuition - the well - can lead to exploration which can lead to discovery of evidence. Wariness of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance can help govern intuition and observation which leads to development of a theory. A conspiracy is a conspiracy. A theory about said conspiracy is just that. Labeling it as “conspiracy theory” is similar to the tricky play on words “Black Lives Matter” described by Eric Weinstein in a recent KZbin post.

[@haruhisuzumiya6650]

theres an industry called a grift

[@goyensjonathandjalmoztfr33]

Belief in Conspiracy theories is belief in lies.

[@virtualSimBS]

Literally not true.

[@tak9163]

So true

[@tak9163]

@@virtualSimBSbro believes on shitload information

[@L0stH0riz0n21]

A lot of scientists are intuitionists with a very strong rational mind. Look at Einstein, Hawkings, etc. So I don't know if the hypothesis is incorrect or if it needs more metric into dividing the population into a clearer subgroups. Intuitionist vs Relationist is too simple.

[@Zeiimer]

Just because physicists have a learned intuition about physics doesn't automatically make them into intuitionists.

[@TheyMadeMonsters]

CoOl ViD..! 👍

[@mysticmouse7261]

The Reason Emotion dichotomy is simplistic and contradicts the theories and practices of the most successful type of psychology - cognitive behavioural.

[@mysticmouse7261]

@david lim actually it's cognitive behavioral and i've studied it.

[@mysticmouse7261]

@david lim hardly beside the point. It' s what makes that psych theory work.

[@mysticmouse7261]

@david lim you don't get it. i'm tired of squabbling over semantic s

[@mysticmouse7261]

@yellow buzz what nonsense. There are a huge contingent of practising CB therapists as we write.

[@mysticmouse7261]

@yellow buzz I know definitions and professional practices in that field which makes you the idiot. Stumped by mere semantics or just a childish need to argue. Go away get psych help for your CB problem.

[@miriamrodriguez7886]

I think your wrong in your way of thinking, an example 911 pilots are trained not to open the cabin if there are Terrorists on board so then how the hell did four pilots open the cabins and Terrorists take over then why did the towers fall like there was a demolition,, then I learned that the earth has a radiation barrier around it so how can an astronaut pass that barrier of radiation without dying and go to the moon, there are questions that many people,ask,it’s not a conspiracy it’s questionable but psychologist don’t want to understand that point. You read books then you question that’s not a conspiracy a lot if things are questionable

[@zen4sen]

You can't train someone to not respond to the possibility of human life being extinguished under duress. You can simulate the experience as much as you want, but until a pilot has to make the real decision of "watch this person die or open the door" they've never really been trained for it.

[@williamspringer9447]

Miriam Rodriguez••• LOGICAL ARGUMENTS MUST BE PROPERLY REASONED FROM TRUE PREMISES THAT ARE WELL SUPPORTED BY RELIABLE EVIDENCE , WHILE CAREFULLY CONSIDERING ALL AVAILABLE RELEVANT EVIDENCE. CALLING AT ARGUMNT A CONSPIRACY THEORY ONLY SERVSE TO CONFUSE THIS PROCESS . THE SCIENCE OF CLASSICAL LOGIC HASN'T BEEN TAUGHT IN OUR STATE CONTROLLED PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY. THE UNDERGROUND HISTORY OF AMERICAN EDUCATION BY JOHN GATTO

[@davidcherelin4291]

There are better explanations than this for the political divide. None if what he's describing is new. And there has been other cleaner studies done regarding the differences between the progressive and conservative mind. This is just creating two new categories for what had already been categorized.

[@pool2587]

2 million sherlock holmes'

[@FreeJulianAssange23]

Ouch to the high number of ads, commercials, and assumptions.

[@kc0jtl]

Listening to this podcast, it is very obvious where these people stand politically, which is unfortunate, I think it takes away from the message.

[@johndaugherty4127]

Was Barak Obama a U.S. citizen?.

[@GNMbg]

he still IS a US citizen

[@Sizdothyx]

You're called a conspiracy theorist until you are right. But for some reason your doubters are never called out for being wrong.

[@lotanowo]

When's the last time a conspiracy turned out to be true? And I'm pretty sure that people are reminded that they're wrong literally every day. Get off that high horse, sir.

[@Sizdothyx]

That there was an internal conspiracy behind the Kennedy shooting and it was so blatant the Russians were going WTF? That there really was a military industrial complex and it was just "accepted" when Bush Jr came into the seat of President after being denied throughout the Reagan, Carter, Bush and Clinton years? Oh, my favorite one: that it turned out that the CIA was actually experimenting on the African-American population in the 1980s. Please deny that last one. I would love to call you a bigot. Please do it. I'm begging you.

[@tak9163]

Conspiracy theories are theories are all stupid and useless. They arent accepted because they ignore logic. I cant believe someone like you can say this. You must have an IQ of 40 to say this seriously

[@pool2587]

tell me about the moon landing again

[@bonniebmatheson]

At my age, I have seen many conspiracies turn out to be true. So, I am very aware that nothing is as it seems. Is that being a conspiracy theorist, or just being wise?

[@Innovationlu]

Would love to see that list. Many times it’s just one or two parts true and a shitload of fiction. If I guess on everything I’m bound to get something right.

[@Falsedragon298]

Burden of proof?

[@lotanowo]

Is it the conspiracy being true, or is it one, tiny part of the conspiracy proven to be true, which then you expanded and claimed that the whole conspiracy is true? Alex Jones was right about the water turning frogs gay, but that doesn't mean that the conspiracy to turn people gay is true.

[@tak9163]

Theres no such thing such as a conspiracy theory being true, even if they did, you still cant say that they are reliable, as they provide little evidence. Its probably just coincidence if they turned out to be true. Anyway flat earth is a widespread conspiracy that has been debunked. I hope you arent a flat earther

[@pool2587]

ufology,extreme germaphobia

[@TheyMadeMonsters]

Amein! HalleluYah!

[@taboovsknowledge1603]

Not thinking conspiratorially, is like, swimming across the ocean while sharks are trying to convince you there is no such thing as water!

[@robertjohnson1647]

it's more like recognising that most sharks don't eat people

[@LockandLoad79]

@@robertjohnson1647 And many sharks are, well, taste really good when deep fried and served with ketchup.

[@muskduh]

9/11 + 11/9 = 20/20 The Matrix Trilogy equation for the New World Order

[@haruhisuzumiya6650]

20/20 is hindsight

[@muskduh]

@@haruhisuzumiya6650 nope. I've been warning people about this for 20 years.

[@torontokravmagaacademychri780]

@@muskduh Pretty flimsy evidence Glenn.

[@ulfhenarpolymathmilitant6258]

@@muskduh only 20 years..................try 30+

[@jag0937eb]

9/11 + 11/9 is not = 20/20 or reduced to 1/1 = 1 (9/11 * 9 = 81/99) + (11/9 * 11 = 121/99) = 81/99 + 121/99 = 202/99 = 2.0404... 20/20 which is = 1/1 or 1 IS NOT = 202/99 = 2.0404... You are wrong

[@pool2587]

nancy ruth owens

[@repCanada]

Rockefeller propaganda

[@philipgroves7309]

Scientists like Einstein are not "intuitionists". They are rationalists. That does not preclude intuition. An intuitionist makes decisions based on intuition rather evidence. Einstein would never do that. Likewise people who say they are complete intuitionist but don't believe in nonsense are either not total intuitionist or do believe in nonsense. An intuitionist would argue that we should all own guns to protect ourselves, a rationalist would look at the evidence and understand that owning a gun makes one's family less safe. That may be counter-intuitive, and may not be intuitive, but it is what the data confirms.

[@Zeiimer]

Einstein did precisely that (base decisions on intuition) when he said "God does not play dice". And he ignored evidence on quantum theory right until he died. Not very rational, mind you.

[@Fooktard323]

Doggerel, through and through. To suggest that progressives are predominately rationalists. Shit comes in all colors and creeds. That would be as arrogant as a conservative suggesting that they are predominantly rationalists. This is obviously a liberal outlet that has the "truth", I hope that you understand that just because you believe it doesn't make it true.

[@klowen7778]

So you're saying that white evangelicals, who now make up the overwhelming majority of MAGA voters, are really 'rationalists'?

[@davidcherelin4291]

Aarrrgggghhh, you're kidding. You divide up people based on your arbitrary silly questions? The first one right of the bat. Would you rather stab a family picture or stick your hand in a bowl of cockroaches? You'd have to know why someone made the choice they made, not just you get to assign the value to it. What picture are you talking about? Are you talking about a picture of my wife and two kids? If that's the case I'd stab that picture with no hesitation, because it's a print of a digital photo that I can print again as soon as I'm done stabbing it. If it's a picture of my mom and dad and brother and sister, well that picture is 50 years old, and there's no reproducing it. So I might make the choice differently and completely rationally based on which picture I'm thinking of. You can't decide if someone is making a rational or emotional decision unless you know their thought process. The putting a nickel in your mouth or what wearing Manson's pj's? Well I have studied and taught food safety, and unlike many of my colleagues I've learned that humans are resilient, and if I'm a healthy adult, I'm just not that concerned about possibly getting some germ. My body will take care of it just fine. So the nickel in the mouth was of zero concern to me. Bacteria doesn't survive on a nickel for very long, and the chances of it having a dangerous bacteria are just about zero. Now if you said the nickel was picked up off a slaughter room floor, or even an operating room floor after an operation, then I wouldn't hesitate to put on the pj's. You can't decide my thought process, because of your thought process.

[@tiffsaver]

The definition of a "conspiracy theorist" is simply one who doesn't believe everything the government tells us. Anymore questions??

[@tak9163]

No, not just government, even scientists. Even our pastor believes on conspiracy theories. I hate him now.

[@tiffsaver]

@@tak9163 Did you go to school to get stupid??

[@HeWhoFlewFromInwood]

Dismiss science and believe the GOP

[@danielwhite6441]

If Obama did have a certificate of live birth and born in Hawai he wouldn't be a US citizen. Same as me only eligible for railroad retirement like Native Americans. Due to only the 13 colonies are officially the US. If you touch state soil first your not US citizen only captive citizen of the state under occupation

[@VictheChick]

Yay, a real live sovereign citizen. Any videos of you getting pulled over for "traveling" that you'd like to share? 😆

[@jamesdean8903]

What a let down, thought it'll be good, but you're so far left you're lost

[@haruhisuzumiya6650]

did the podcast put your rationalization at odds with your own beliefs? thats the dichotomy that divides the usa.

[@VictheChick]

@@haruhisuzumiya6650 Sounds like it did, well put! 👍🏻👍🏻