I appreciate getting the summarized version to the point where feel informed. I am finding it increasingly difficult to get through books that harp for long times about the details after the highlights have been delivered. I sat down to re-read Ulysses recently and gave up after ten pages. The language is superb but I know the story so well I couldn't maintain my flagging intterest.
This is a lesson for me as I struggle with my own manuscript and with a writing style that ranges from prolix to pedantic. I keep trying to summarize but that's apparently a skill I don't own.
A friend of mine has a friend from childhood who is a hardcore flat earther. As a child this friend was, of course, not an adherent of this, and my friend only recently came to a conclusion he shared with me. He believes his friend's primary reason for holding this belief and for always putting it out there is a matter of control.
The illusion of control is part of it, but my friend insists there is, in fact, a sense that his friend is controlling any interaction. He can hijack a conversation and control predictably what the outcome will be. You can either argue with him or agree. Thus, any gathering, any time spent among others, he can keep within a set of possibilities in which he feels comfortable and in charge.
Thanks for this wonderful summary and the cross-disciplinary connections. The prehistoric roots are one aspect that may be overemphasized, not in here by you, but in people's imaginations. I wonder if for my own thinking it makes a stronger point to connect healthy habits, inclinations, desires, aspirations, etc., with the unhealthy, analogous to obsessive washing and healthy grooming habits.
In particular, I love the way you highlight, in addition to the illusion of control, the camaraderie and sense of belonging to a like-minded community. With its own shared tropes and references, the in-group of conspiracy adherents can also reflect the negative potential of even ordinary communities for intentionally snubbing and isolating others.
On the one hand, it may seem "natural" that we feel a stronger loyalty to our families. Such "common sense" arguments can be used to rationalize genocide. Of course, we know it is not true; often family members, with their personal histories and common origins gall us over time. Increasing genetic and archeological evidence shows this has actually been a more accurate picture of human relations in hunter-gatherer societies both today and prehistorically.
Apparently individuals often traveled very far to find a group they preferred. Present-day small bands show only about 10% common ancestry, which makes perfect sense. We can all feel somewhat validated in our responses and also more hopeful for our species. It is likely no more "natural" to prefer those closest to us by accident of birth than to others. There's more going on, for better and worse.
I appreciate getting the summarized version to the point where feel informed. I am finding it increasingly difficult to get through books that harp for long times about the details after the highlights have been delivered. I sat down to re-read Ulysses recently and gave up after ten pages. The language is superb but I know the story so well I couldn't maintain my flagging intterest.
This is a lesson for me as I struggle with my own manuscript and with a writing style that ranges from prolix to pedantic. I keep trying to summarize but that's apparently a skill I don't own.
A friend of mine has a friend from childhood who is a hardcore flat earther. As a child this friend was, of course, not an adherent of this, and my friend only recently came to a conclusion he shared with me. He believes his friend's primary reason for holding this belief and for always putting it out there is a matter of control.
The illusion of control is part of it, but my friend insists there is, in fact, a sense that his friend is controlling any interaction. He can hijack a conversation and control predictably what the outcome will be. You can either argue with him or agree. Thus, any gathering, any time spent among others, he can keep within a set of possibilities in which he feels comfortable and in charge.
Thanks for this wonderful summary and the cross-disciplinary connections. The prehistoric roots are one aspect that may be overemphasized, not in here by you, but in people's imaginations. I wonder if for my own thinking it makes a stronger point to connect healthy habits, inclinations, desires, aspirations, etc., with the unhealthy, analogous to obsessive washing and healthy grooming habits.
In particular, I love the way you highlight, in addition to the illusion of control, the camaraderie and sense of belonging to a like-minded community. With its own shared tropes and references, the in-group of conspiracy adherents can also reflect the negative potential of even ordinary communities for intentionally snubbing and isolating others.
On the one hand, it may seem "natural" that we feel a stronger loyalty to our families. Such "common sense" arguments can be used to rationalize genocide. Of course, we know it is not true; often family members, with their personal histories and common origins gall us over time. Increasing genetic and archeological evidence shows this has actually been a more accurate picture of human relations in hunter-gatherer societies both today and prehistorically.
Apparently individuals often traveled very far to find a group they preferred. Present-day small bands show only about 10% common ancestry, which makes perfect sense. We can all feel somewhat validated in our responses and also more hopeful for our species. It is likely no more "natural" to prefer those closest to us by accident of birth than to others. There's more going on, for better and worse.