|
|
Post by redneckr0nin on Jan 21, 2011 21:28:42 GMT -4
Wasn't saying you did, I'm saying the typical hoax believer I run into is American with a severe paranoia of there federal government. I have nothing but love for the big brother downstairs. Glad and thankful to have a neighbor like them.
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 24, 2011 10:23:57 GMT -4
I have usually attributed the A-hoax conspiracy belief and any number of other stupid conspiracies attributed to the US government and even the general hatred of the US government to a basic anti-authoritarianism found in a wide range of people. Most rabidly in young adults. If you want to hate authority, the US was certainly broadest target to aim for during the 20th century.
I ran into anti-Americanism all the time when I lived in Europe. Most of them just had vivid imaginations while a few actually knew quite a bit about history and current affairs. Most were prone to theorizing from a few facts without bothering with little details like further checking the theories against reality.
The Canadians I met there were (unsurprisingly) far more knowledgeable about the US and had various likes and dislikes of the US, but few wild conspiracies. Those who had strong dislikes would warm up quickly if you offered to buy them a beer and bridged the cultural gap by discussing Rompin' Ronnie Hawkins.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 24, 2011 10:43:56 GMT -4
I first came across the hoax when someone showed me a magazine article about it and challenged me to refute all the claims, which I did.
I'm an aerospace engineer (retired), I lived throgh the Apollo years, and I find the claim that my contempories in the US were incapable of getting to the moon rather insulting to my profession. Apart from that, I've always had a bit of an interest in weird beliefs, and derive a lot of amusement from them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 24, 2011 12:15:48 GMT -4
I agree that many Apollo deniers are strongly anti-authoritarian. But then so am I.
It's just that despite the many bad things the US government has done over the years I'm still willing to give them credit where it's due -- and that includes the Apollo program.
I keep trying, without much success, to point out to the hoax believers that one does not necessarily have to think that the Apollo program was worthwhile to concede that it did in fact land twelve men on the moon. If someone were to say that Apollo was a complete waste of money, I would disagree -- but I would concede their right to hold that opinion. But while everyone has a right to his or her own opinion, they do not have a right to their own facts. And Apollo, regardless of what you think of it, is a documented historical fact.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 24, 2011 12:48:09 GMT -4
It's just that despite the many bad things the US government has done over the years I'm still willing to give them credit where it's due -- and that includes the Apollo program. That is a concept the hoax believers can't seem to understand. To them its either (A) you love the government and everything they do and trust them fully, or (B) you hate the government and can never trust them on anything they do. Their feeble little minds can't grasp the idea that we can believe them about Apollo and still be critical of the government on other issues. I think its likely because the HB is driven solely by emotion while we make up our minds on facts. The HB doesn't have the knowledge or capacity to make a fact-based decision, so the HB defaults to his/her emotional feelings about the government. If they hate the government, then they hate everything about the government and distrusts them in all cases. The HB assumes we function the same way, so to them our support of Apollo must also be emotional. Since they feel a consistent hate and distrust, they believe we must feel a consistent love and trust. They don't see how we can follow facts to very different conclusions on different issues. At least that my 2 cents. |
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jan 24, 2011 13:34:53 GMT -4
It's just that despite the many bad things the US government has done over the years I'm still willing to give them credit where it's due -- and that includes the Apollo program. That is a concept the hoax believers can't seem to understand. To them its either (A) you love the government and everything they do and trust them fully, or (B) you hate the government and can never trust them on anything they do. Their feeble little minds can't grasp the idea that we can believe them about Apollo and still be critical of the government on other issues. I think its likely because the HB is driven solely by emotion while we make up our minds on facts. The HB doesn't have the knowledge or capacity to make a fact-based decision, so the HB defaults to his/her emotional feelings about the government. If they hate the government, then they hate everything about the government and distrusts them in all cases. The HB assumes we function the same way, so to them our support of Apollo must also be emotional. Since they feel a consistent hate and distrust, they believe we must feel a consistent love and trust. They don't see how we can follow facts to very different conclusions on different issues. At least that my 2 cents. It was raised in the Jarrah Meets Buzz Thread that there is no one reason for people believing the hoax. I agree with that observation. I really do believe there are some who are in it solely for profit, and I believe with reasonable confidence that they do have one reason to promote it. Of course, that is my opinion, and without sitting down and understanding them I cannot truly verify my view as being fact. However, the anti-government types and anti-science types are probably believers for very complex reasons. I think there are a range of mental health issues that dominate their thinking. I think one individual I have interacted with may have Asperger's Syndrome. I don't mean that in a bad way as it must be awful. I work in an environment with lots of mathematicians, and many of them are toward the Rainman end of the autism spectrum. I also believe that some hoax believers are very paranoid, and are unable to see the rational argument that 'because one believes in Apollo, then it does not mean one also sides with every aspect of the US government.' As a UK citizen, I think some US foreign policy has been dreadful over the last 50 years. Having said that, the Soviets, China, the UK, France, India, Pakistan, even countries like Australia and Canada have acted in their own interests. Coming from the UK, I'd admit that we have probably created more of the world's problems than most countries. I'm not afraid to say that our imperialism has damaged the world. I can believe in Apollo and be critical of my government at the same time. For example, I voted for Tony Blair, but after his foray into Iraq I stopped voting for Labour. In my opinion, the man deserves to face a court for taking us into that conflict. Whether I hold that opinion or not does not make Apollo any less real. That's my 2 pence. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 24, 2011 14:38:08 GMT -4
However, the anti-government types and anti-science types are probably believers for very complex reasons. I think there are a range of mental health issues that dominate their thinking. I think one individual I have interacted with may have Asperger's Syndrome. I don't mean that in a bad way as it must be awful. I work in an environment with lots of mathematicians, and many of them are toward the Rainman end of the autism spectrum. Oh, dear. People put a lot of weight on autism these days, but I really don't think it's the most likely cause. I think that there are certain mental conditions which become, for lack of a better word, "fashionable." There's a lot of buzz about autism these days and specifically about Asperger's, but I don't think most people really know much about them. Including and perhaps especially a lot of people who self-diagnose. I'll admit I'm not an expert, but from what I know, a person with Asperger's is less likely to believe in the hoax. It's interacting with people, not with information, that's the problem. Yes, once a person with Asperger's becomes an HB, they're probably more likely to stick to it simply because monomania can be a symptom. However, a person with Asperger's will find all the information they can on a given subject, not ignore the stuff which is inconvenient. As for autistics, we wouldn't interact with them much at all. In that one of the symptoms of autism is a poor or total lack of interaction with others. How much cognizant abilities are damaged is a matter of debate, given the communication issues, but let's just say that looking for accuracy in autism portrayal does not start with Dustin Hoffman. If the symptom you're seeing is paranoia, well, there's a range of illnesses that could be. There's just plain Paranoid Personality Disorder, for example. It strikes me that this would be the most likely one we'd encounter. It may be comorbid with various other mental illnesses, but it may also be stand-alone. Certainly it's a heck of a lot less debilitating than paranoid schizophrenia, which we also encounter. We might encounter some of the Persecutory Type of Delusional Disorder, and probably Mixed Type, but I'm inclined to doubt we get many. And, of course, there are people who hold a single delusion but not enough to be clinical. It happens; mental illness is a spectrum, after all. The term "borderline" exists for a reason. Honestly, I think that's the most common mental health reason for HBs. One sub-clinical delusion. One sub-clinical paranoia. It happens. |
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jan 24, 2011 16:29:53 GMT -4
Was it really necessary to start your comment with oh dear. I make that about the 3rd time you have taken a swipe at me in the last few days. Personally, I now find your responses to me offensive. The posts I have submitted on this topic have been highly caveatted with phrases like 'that is my opinion', or 'even if I was an expert I'd have to make a diagnosis.' I believe you spoke the other day about others being patronising. I found this opening gambit particularly patronising towards me, and wholly unnecessary. If you are better qualified in this this subject, then by all means present that experience and I will gladly take note. I am keen to learn and understand, but not if it involves cheap shots. I fully realise that autism does not start with Dustin Hoffman. It was a figure of speech, and probably a bad one to use. Paul Dirac, probably the world's greatest quantum physicist had a form of autism. It was probably that autism that enabled him to develop his theories. If you look at the construct I made, and read it through a few times you'd realise my reference to autism was not made in context of whether someone believes the Apollo hoax or not, it was really a reference of how difficult it is to work out why people act the way they do, as there are such range of illnesses and each has a spectrum. Reading back it was not clear that was what I was saying. However, I normally find it politer to seek clarification when using this medium to communicate. I will be more careful in future when discussing this topic. I have nothing but respect for all members of this forum, and admit that sometimes spills into mild sycophancy. Sorry, but your responses are making me feel uneasy. While this may sound rather sharp, it lacks the inflection needed to soften the harshness. I write it as respectfully as my limitations in English allow. |
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jan 24, 2011 17:06:35 GMT -4
The term "borderline" exists for a reason. Honestly, I think that's the most common mental health reason for HBs. I have been reluctant to mentioning it in an earlier discussion, as I found diagnoses frowned upon, but as I have had close and extended contact with several persons fitting the BPD-diagnosis, one of which was hospitalized for treatment, I tend to agree with you that BPD-behavior at least can be recognized in the HB crowd, and I would add that at least one certain highly profiled HB's behavior in my opinion fits the description of that disorder rather well. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 24, 2011 17:13:51 GMT -4
You've hit one of my two biggest buttons, which is perceptions of mental illness. (You certainly would never hit the other, which is my daughter. Unless you, as my best friend's soon-to-be-ex-stepmother did, say you can't understand why anyone would "abandon their child like that.") I posit that I know more about mental illness than anyone on this board, though I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong on that. Bringing up autism was frankly irrelevant unless you intended it to apply to hoax belief. My go-to disease in this case, which I try very hard not to diagnose online but haven't been able to avoid now and again, is paranoid schizophrenia. And honestly, it doesn't take much study to know how the thought processes on that manifest, though I maintain you can't understand them unless you are yourself paranoid schizophrenic.
I'm afraid, in fact, that my own illness has been acting up lately and making me a bit . . . forceful. There are reasons for this; I'm typing this on my boyfriend's computer because mine has been in the shop for two weeks. Since most of my support network is online and since I can only use his when he isn't home or at least is willing to give me a little time on it, you can see where I'm touchier than usual. The people I'd talk all this out with aren't as available to me, and I'm tense about when my computer will get back, because it shouldn't be taking this long. (Which itself involves the emotional issues of the person fixing it!) There are also several programs I use a great deal which aren't on this computer. And as if that weren't bad enough, most mentally ill people do better if they can develop a routine, and mine has been totally disrupted for two weeks.
Most of the pronouncements made on boards of this ilk about why hoax believers act the way they do are formed based on minimal knowledge of psychology. There's a member of BAUT who is always this blunt who maintains that the hardcore ones are just stupid. I actually like that member, but the pure stubbornness involved there is, to my way of thinking, ignoring evidence just as much as the lesser hoax believers do. I grant that some are just stupid, but I think that's a vanishingly small percentage. The number of paranoid schizophrenics is probably substantially higher, and I don't think there are all that many of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 24, 2011 17:20:02 GMT -4
I have been reluctant to mentioning it in an earlier discussion, as I found diagnoses frowned upon, but as I have had close and extended contact with several persons fitting the BPD-diagnosis, one of which was hospitalized for treatment, I tend to agree with you that BPD-behavior at least can be recognized in the HB crowd, and I would add that at least one certain highly profiled HB's behavior in my opinion fits the description of that disorder rather well. That wasn't the term I meant. "Borderline Personality Disorder" is a dicey diagnosis, as far as I'm concerned. There are some real problems with the idea of it as a disorder, not least being how unevenly it's applied. I had it proposed as a diagnosis for my own illness despite how perfectly I meet the criteria for Bipolar Type I. Of course, I don't actually own a DSM (they're a bit pricey), and I'm certainly not a trained mental health professional, though I am an extremely well-read amateur with, shall we say, a deeply personal reason for my interest in the field. No, what I meant was "borderline" as in "showing symptoms of the illness without being quite clinical." I have a friend who is, so far as I can tell, a borderline sociopath. He shows many of the indicators, but he doesn't show strongly enough to be diagnosable. (Though his twin does.) Mental illness is more complicated than many physical illnesses that way. It's a little difficult to have a borderline broken leg. |
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jan 24, 2011 18:07:44 GMT -4
I have been reluctant to mentioning it in an earlier discussion, as I found diagnoses frowned upon, but as I have had close and extended contact with several persons fitting the BPD-diagnosis, one of which was hospitalized for treatment, I tend to agree with you that BPD-behavior at least can be recognized in the HB crowd, and I would add that at least one certain highly profiled HB's behavior in my opinion fits the description of that disorder rather well. No, what I meant was "borderline" as in "showing symptoms of the illness without being quite clinical." I have a friend who is, so far as I can tell, a borderline sociopath. He shows many of the indicators, but he doesn't show strongly enough to be diagnosable. (Though his twin does.) Mental illness is more complicated than many physical illnesses that way. It's a little difficult to have a borderline broken leg. Ok. I misunderstood your point. I still hold the above described view though! |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 26, 2011 5:10:34 GMT -4
And honestly, it doesn't take much study to know how the thought processes on that manifest, though I maintain you can't understand them unless you are yourself paranoid schizophrenic. I believe that we all do have an inkling of what it feels like: even fully healthy people seem to experience something very much like schizophrenia every time we sleep and dream. Not only is a dream a full-blown psychotic episode that you're (usually) unable to distinguish from reality at the time, but it's also very common to hallucinate sounds just as you're falling asleep. I'll most often hear a single spoken syllable, usually my name as though someone is calling me. For lack of a better term it has a certain "dreamy" quality that tells me it probably wasn't real. But I've concluded that the subjective experience is probably not too dissimilar from the auditory hallucinations -- "hearing voices" -- that many schizophrenics have while they're wide awake. |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 26, 2011 5:44:17 GMT -4
Their feeble little minds can't grasp the idea that we can believe them about Apollo and still be critical of the government on other issues. They're also completely unable to grasp that we Apollogists don't take the government's claims totally on faith. They really seem to believe that we do no matter how many times I try to explain that I've actually checked many of the government's Apollo claims myself. I'm an electrical/computer engineer by profession, so my education included a lot of science (especially physics) and math. I've studied many Apollo technical documents: manuals, schematics, mission reports, procedures and so forth. And I can actually understand most of them. I can see for myself how some electrical circuit works and that it probably does just what it's claimed to do. I've calculated the delta-V capability of each stage of the Saturn V to see if it's consistent with what's needed to reach the moon with an Apollo-sized spacecraft -- and it is. I have a pretty good understanding of orbital dynamics, so I can understand how an Apollo mission is designed and why each maneuver is performed. But I might as well be talking to a stone wall. They don't know how to do any of this and because of their extreme paranoia they're certainly not about to take anybody else's word for it. This actually raises an interesting philosophical question about living in the modern world. You could define civilization as almost entirely a process of specialization. Before the modern era, every person developed the skills needed to survive on his or her own or in small groups. Everybody knew how to forage or hunt for food and water, to build a shelter, to defend him or herself, and so on. But you spent pretty much all of your time doing these things. As the saying goes, life was nasty, brutish and short. We've since lost those abilities because, over time, we've made our world so complex that it's simply not possible for any one person to be self sufficient. We each become proficient and productive in an increasingly smaller fraction of all the things and services that we each need (or at least want). So we each perform our specialty for a large number of other people, and in exchange they provide the items or services that we cannot or don't know how make or perform for ourselves. We've become highly interdependent, and that just requires too much trust for some people. We're still the same species that spent almost all of its evolutionary history as primitive hunter-gatherers. There's so much about today's world that a HB just doesn't understand. And understanding it all is far beyond the capabilities of even the most talented human, to say nothing of your average HB. |
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jan 26, 2011 7:10:06 GMT -4
Their feeble little minds can't grasp the idea that we can believe them about Apollo and still be critical of the government on other issues. They're also completely unable to grasp that we Apollogists don't take the government's claims totally on faith. They really seem to believe that we do no matter how many times I try to explain that I've actually checked many of the government's Apollo claims myself. So we don't have to believe the (US) government because we - in principle at least - can educate ourselves and thus bring the facts to test. |
|
