Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things
Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things
Steven Pinker explains the cognitive biases we all suffer from and how they can short-circuit rational thinking and lead us into believing stupid things. Skip to 12:15 to bypass the preamble.
You're viewing a single thread.
Garbage psuedointellectual analysis.
Absolutely ridiculous to compare the Warren Commission to established scientific theories. Months before Kennedy's assassination, Allen Dulles, the man who turned the CIA into an organization that specialized in assassinating world leaders and covering it up, was fired by JFK. After his death, Dulles was placed on Warren Commission, in charge of investigating the event. Aside from this blatant conflict of interest, the commission proceeded to make an absolute joke of the proceedings, with key evidence such as the bullet that killed him having a breach in the chain of custody. There are real causes to be suspicious of the official story, and it's not really possible for anyone to conduct an independent investigation, basically the whole thing requires the assumption that Dulles is above suspicion.
Science does not do that. In science, you don't have to trust any one individual, because experiments are meant to be replicated and subject to peer review. By placing these things on the same level, Pinker is lending credibility to the US government and intelligence community at the expense of science.
He then goes on to lend credence to ridiculous COVID conspiracy theories and minimizes far-right, pro-Trump conspiracy theories, including Alex Jones.
Then he starts talking about Russia, "You see that Russia has tsars, then the Soviet Union, then Putin, so there's this historical continuity there," which an absolutely insane thing to say, arguing that Russians are just innately prone to rejecting "Enlightenment values" and to "authoritarianism." It's an extremely trite and lazy analysis which simply doesn't care about the vast historical differences between those three forms of government of the vastly different philosophical framework behind each. Has Stephen Pinker considered the possibility that the reason smart people believe stupid things is that overconfidence causes them to make broad sweeping judgements about fields outside their expertise without doing a thorough investigation?
Stopped watching as they start going into AI, not worth my time.
So who really killed Kennedy?
Likely Lee Harvey Oswald, but that doesn't mean that he was acting alone. The fact that he was killed before he could testify could indicate a cover-up.
I believe that Dulles orchestrated the assassination. The CIA had been assassinating democratically elected leaders in every far corner of the globe, if they were willing to overthrow the government of Guatemala over some bananas, I find it hard to believe that they didn't have a plan for what to do in the event that a US president went against their interests.
Dulles had both the means and motive to pull it off and cover it up afterwards, that doesn't conclusively prove he did it, but it's enough to establish reasonable suspicion.
So you genuinely believe the conspiracy theory that the CIA was behind the Kennedy assassination?
That's got to be the OG of conspiracy theories.
I do. That something is a conspiracy theory does not make it false, conspiracies do happen. For a long time, it would've been a conspiracy theory to say that the CIA was behind the 1953 Iranian coup, for instance. They covered it up for decades before finally admitting to it. The person who first broke the Watergate story was a woman named Martha Mitchell, who was branded as crazy and delusional before it was revealed that she was right. The government's illegal mass surveillance program was long dismissed as a conspiracy theory before Edward Snowden came forward with proof.
Placing these sorts of things on the same level as things that are scientifically proven to be false is harmful, both because it gives undue credibility to the government, and detracts from the credibility of science. There are scientific means of proving that the moon landing was real, that 9/11 was not faked, that the earth is not flat, that evolution happens, etc. But those things are categorically different from reasonable speculation about what intelligence agencies may be up to behind closed doors, in the absence of conclusive proof.
What makes the Kennedy assassination fall in with the rest of those conspiracies is that it relies on the same suspension of reasonable alternatives.
Can you think of no other plausible explanation for why Dulles was selected to be on the committee? None?
Dulles would have to be the sort of person who would commit to murdering the US president over a grudge. A grudge he held for two years. And what would this murder achieve for him? Did he expect he would get his job back? Personal satisfaction? Was that really worth destabilising the nation he had been doing all his CIA work in support of? Not much pay off for the risk he was taking.
And how did he manged to rope in a disgraced former marine who had defected to the Soviets? A marine who only a few months had attempted to assassinate a US General?
As they say in the video, smart people belive stupid things for all sorts of reasons. Here the narrative that a lonely disturbed former marine was behind it all, just isn't appealing, "surely there's more to it?" we say.
You're not alone though, about 75% of Americans beleive in the kennedy conspiracy.
Can you think of no other plausible explanation for why Dulles was selected to be on the committee? None?
Of course there were reasons to select him, he was an expert in assassinations of world leaders, after all, but those reasons should have been overridden by the clear and obvious conflict of interest.
Dulles would have to be the sort of person who would commit to murdering the US president over a grudge. A grudge he held for two years. And what would this murder achieve for him? Did he expect he would get his job back? Personal satisfaction? Was that really worth destabilising the nation he had been doing all his CIA work in support of? Not much pay off for the risk he was taking.
He may have had a grudge and there may have been people still loyal to him in the intelligence community, but it's also a question of power and ideology. The Kennedy assassination allowed the intelligence community, that Dulles spent his whole career building and strengthening, to increase its power. By demonstrating that they have the means to assassinate a president who steps out of line, they can exert control over future presidents, and no president since Kennedy has gone so directly against the wishes of the intelligence community. Furthermore, following the failure of The Bay of Pigs, Kennedy became somewhat more inclined towards deescalation and coexistence with socialist countries and his firing of Dulles was only a part of that. Dulles' whole career was directly contrary to that approach, and he had had people killed over much lower stakes than that.
We're talking about controlling the direction of the most powerful nation in the world, and you're describing that as "not much pay off."
And how did he manged to rope in a disgraced former marine who had defected to the Soviets?
Had tried to defect to the Soviets. Tried and failed. I wonder, why do you think the Soviets refused to accept him? Could it be that they felt there were security risks, you know, that they didn't trust that his defection was genuine? There is little evidence that would suggest Oswald was actually a committed communist, and for instance Wikipedia cites his diary saying:
"I am starting to reconsider my desire about staying [in the USSR]. The work is drab, the money I get has nowhere to be spent. No nightclubs or bowling alleys, no places of recreation except the trade union dances. I have had enough."
The fact that he had tried to defect to the Soviets doesn't really remove suspicion from him. Surely, if my theory is correct, Dulles would have loved the opportunity to cast suspicion on the USSR.
A marine who only a few months had attempted to assassinate a US General?
Allegedly. If there had been proof of that, he wouldn't have been walking free.
Here the narrative that a lonely disturbed former marine was behind it all, just isn’t appealing, “surely there’s more to it?” we say.
No. For years I fully accepted the official story and wrote off alternatives as conspiracy theories, without looking into it. I changed my mind because I became aware of actual reasons to be suspicious, such as the breach in custody of the bullet and the conflict of interest with Dulles. The evidence is extremely shaky, which is very much consistent with the idea of a cover up. Before becoming aware of that evidence, I was willing to accept the official narrative.
There's nothing "stupid" about it. There are plenty of conspiracy theories that are stupid, that people believe for the reason you mention or other irrational reasons, but you can't just label something a conspiracy theory and then use that label to dismiss all criticism.
Of course there were reasons to select him, he was am expert in assassinations of world leaders, after all, but those reasons should have been overridden by the clear and obvious conflict of interest.
He planned the coups in Iran, Guatemala and Cuba but those didn't involve any assassinations. Is Dulles being an assassin part of the conspiracy as well? No evidence seems to exist.
But lets grant that because even then there is more plausible explanation why LBJ selected him for the board. The public at the time had no knowledge of the Kennedy administrations involvement in the bay of pigs disaster, Johnson wanted someone on the commission to make sure no awkward questions got asked.
He may have had a grudge and there may have been people still loyal to him in the intelligence community, but it's also a question of power and ideology. The Kennedy assassination allowed the intelligence community, that Dulles spent his whole career building and strengthening, to increase its power. By demonstrating that they have the means to assassinate a president who steps out of line, they can exert control over future presidents, and no president since Kennedy has gone so directly against the wishes of the intelligence community. Furthermore, following the failure of The Bay of Pigs, Kennedy became somewhat more inclined towards deescalation and coexistence with socialist countries and his firing of Dulles was only a part of that. Dulles' whole career was directly contrary to that approach, and he had had people killed over much lower stakes than that.
And how many people were involved with this? Because it sounds like every single CIA director (and probably a few deputies) since then would have to be "in on it". And not one person has said something, or accidentally dropped a receipt or a recording or any physical evidence whatsoever? Sort of like the Moon landing conspiracy.
Had tried to defect to the Soviets. Tried and failed.
He lived in Minsk for three years working at an electronics factory. He wasn't booted out by the Soviets, he returned to the US of his own will. But why is his failure to defect important for you to dispute? Surely its completely immaterial? How would him being a communist affect the narrative?
"I am starting to reconsider my desire about staying [in the USSR]. The work is drab, the money I get has nowhere to be spent. No nightclubs or bowling alleys, no places of recreation except the trade union dances. I have had enough."
Ironically quoting something that disproves your assertion above that he hadn't defected.
Allegedly. If there had been proof of that, he wouldn't have been walking free.
The bullet was eventually linked to a gun Oswald owned and Mrs Oswald testified that he did it, but this didn't come out until later.
No. For years I fully accepted the official story and wrote off alternatives as conspiracy theories, without looking into it. I changed my mind because I became aware of actual reasons to be suspicious, such as the breach in custody of the bullet and the conflict of interest with Dulles. The evidence is extremely shaky, which is very much consistent with the idea of a cover up. Before becoming aware of that evidence, I was willing to accept the official narrative.
No investigation is perfect and the more plausible explanation is mistakes happen. In order for it not to be a mistake, it has to be part of a chain of deliberate events each with its own probability of being true and each with its own chance of going wrong. So we have to deny the possibility that a single mistake is the plausible explanation in order to allow us to believe that the very implausible event chain (ongoing apparently) of hundreds of possibilities all compounding was executed flawlessly, is true.
That's why it's stupid. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise so please don't take my points above as worthy of responding to, I just wanted to tease out where the cognitive leap was.
He planned the coups in Iran, Guatemala and Cuba but those didn’t involve any assassinations. Is Dulles being an assassin part of the conspiracy as well? No evidence seems to exist.
That's a joke, surely. You can't possibly be that ignorant of history.
And how many people were involved with this? Because it sounds like every single CIA director (and probably a few deputies) since then would have to be “in on it”. And not one person has said something, or accidentally dropped a receipt or a recording or any physical evidence whatsoever?
Wow, it's so shocking that the organization that's in charge of espionage would not accidentally drop major incriminating evidence against themselves. Clearly this proves I'm wrong.
Wait a minute though, the CIA has records on the Kennedy assassination that have, to date, not been declassified, and they've somehow managed to avoid leaking them to the public. How many people are involved in maintaining that classified information? Are you really telling me that not one person has said something, or accidentally dropped those records directly in front of a journalist? Clearly, the only conclusion is that those classified documents don't actually exist. Or... maybe the CIA is capable of keeping secrets, you know, like, the thing that it's their job to do?
Sort of like the Moon landing conspiracy.
The moon landing conspiracy can easily be disproved scientifically through available evidence, it is not comparable.
The bullet was eventually linked to a gun Oswald owned and Mrs Oswald testified that he did it, but this didn’t come out until later.
No, the bullet was shown to have come from the same type of gun that he owned, not the specific one. The evidence is still circumstantial.
Regardless, this doesn't prove anything.
No investigation is perfect and the more plausible explanation is mistakes happen. In order for it not to be a mistake, it has to be part of a chain of deliberate events each with its own probability of being true and each with its own chance of going wrong. So we have to deny the possibility that a single mistake is the plausible explanation in order to allow us to believe that the very implausible event chain (ongoing apparently) of hundreds of possibilities all compounding was executed flawlessly, is true.
There's a lot more than one single mistake. If you actually look into the evidence, you'll see that.
My narrative is not a "very implausible event chain." You haven't established even a single link in that chain that would be "very implausible."