Why People Believe Weird Things

[happyhaddock]

"Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer, Steven Jay Gould; covers Holocaust denial and creationism in considerable detail, and has chapters on abductions, Satanism, Afrocentrism, near-death experiences, Randian positivism, and psychics.

Shermer has five basic answers to the implied question in his title: for consolation, for immediate gratification, for simplicity, for moral meaning, and because hope springs eternal. He shows the kinds of errors in thinking that lead people to believe weird (that is, unsubstantiated) things, especially the built-in human need to see patterns, even where there is no pattern to be seen.

Shermer has said that people believe first on an emotional level then try to find ways to rationalize what they believe. Perhaps this explains why so many apparently educated people believe in Scott's guilt but are unable to offer even one piece of proof that is reasonable from a legal point of view. Over and over I have asked for even one item that points to guilt and is incapable of innocent explanation. So far no one has offered one. You get the same irrelevancies trotted out as if they were valid ("He acted odd") but nothing that should ever be offered in court.

I think Shermer has a point.

[lulu]

You are so right Dateline Program here in Sacramento CA area had a show about this last night it is amazing how many educated people were duped by so many people. And more amazing is they refused to believe the truth after it was revealed.
For instance one woman climed to be pregnant with 6 babies and collected so much money then she wouldn't let anyone see them and finally was found out. All of them were wird things and people believed and sent lots of money to them. BTW "S" I'm glad you are still here clicking along for SP

[Maggie]

I think he has a good point too.

I've been calling it brainwashing by way of the media and lies, but maybe the psychology behind it goes deeper than that.

Scott Peterson sits on death row with absolutely NO EVIDENCE what-so-ever that he killed his wife. (In fact, imo, the known facts point to his innocence)..... yet once the media and LE decided to demonize him with the PC of opportunist Frey, it was all over. I've always been disgusted with the hypocrisy of this, as we all know millions of people cheat, and often way worse than Scott Peterson.

[dove]

That is a very important point and very interesting observation happy. I totally agree. People do believe on an emotional level first. They also need to believe in things happening in patterns. For something this awful to happen and for nobody to know how, who or why leaves people in a state of confusion. There has to be black and white, victim, villian. With only victim people can't cope, not even the police.

When it comes down to a group of people and what they believe I think it boils down to right brain left brain thinking people. I think the people who deal with things more on an emotional level are the ones who in the end say "hey, wait a min." I think this study would be a good study to include in an appeal.

[dove]

This is also why people like Noreen Renier were very damaging to Scott. People needed answers and she gave them what they WANTED to hear. She didn't say anything that hadn't already been reported. She used her influence and her own assumptions and made judgements. Very damaging. I'll note that I was reading another case about a lady called Sandra who claimed she used EVP to find out and report that Scott Peterson murdered Lacy. Her works are posted on the internet and started appearing in Jan 2003. I am 100% that she used her own pre-judgement of Scott to report what she did. She also goes on to talk about the Elizabeth Smart case and how she knows she's dead. She says, "I'll be working on the Elizabeth Smart case next, at least her parents seem to have accepted her death." This alone proves that her mind convicted Scott and that is why she had the experiences she did.

[lulu]

Does anyone know how the TV physics get themselves designated as such? Because if they were always right we would not need detectives and Court TV would not have to show the same ole programs over and over hwere they have helped solve a case.

[happyhaddock]

lulu said:

Does anyone know how the TV physics get themselves designated as such? Because if they were always right we would not need detectives and Court TV would not have to show the same ole programs over and over hwere they have helped solve a case.

AFAIK, they start by deluding themselves then move on to deluding others. I know of no case in which they provided any useful information at all.

No 'psychic' has ever been able to demonstrate such ability. If they could, there is a $1 million prize waiting for them.

www.randi.org/research/index.html

[snowgirl]

lulu said:

Does anyone know how the TV physics get themselves designated as such? Because if they were always right we would not need detectives and Court TV would not have to show the same ole programs over and over hwere they have helped solve a case.

I don't believe any of them have claimed they're "always right". They will tell you they do not solve the crimes they only provide leads that may help investigators solve the crimes. On the majority of shows I've watched it is the investigators that say the psychic's leads were "right on". Also, not all crimes where a psychic has been used have been solved. We will always need detectives and the reason CourtTV shows the same shows is because there aren't that many psychics out there. Usually psychic's are only called in when those investigating a case have hit a brick wall.

[snowgirl]

happyhaddock said:

AFAIK, they start by deluding themselves then move on to deluding others. I know of no case in which they provided any useful information at all.

No 'psychic' has ever been able to demonstrate such ability. If they could, there is a $1 million prize waiting for them.

www.randi.org/research/index.html

Have you ever watched CourtTV? They've shown many cases where the detectives have claimed that "leads" given to them by a psychic were "on the money" and helped them solve the case. You may not know of any case where they provided useful information, but there are cases out there that have been solved using the information they provided.

[artguy]

snowgirl said:

On the majority of shows I've watched it is the investigators that say the psychic's leads were "right on".

snowgirl - I would be interested in seeing any tangible verifiable evidence you can produce that demonstrates any specific instance where a psychic was proven to have conclusively provided any unambiguous and accurate details of a crime that was not discovered or made available through any other resources.

[happyhaddock]

happyhaddock said:

AFAIK, they start by deluding themselves then move on to deluding others. I know of no case in which they provided any useful information at all.

No 'psychic' has ever been able to demonstrate such ability. If they could, there is a $1 million prize waiting for them.

www.randi.org/research/index.html

snowgirl said:

Have you ever watched CourtTV? They've shown many cases where the detectives have claimed that "leads" given to them by a psychic were "on the money" and helped them solve the case. You may not know of any case where they provided useful information, but there are cases out there that have been solved using the information they provided.

I am unaware of any time or any place where a self styled 'psychic' has shown the slighest ability to do any better than guesswork. They have never assisted in the slightest way in any case.

[snowgirl]

happyhaddock said:

I am unaware of any time or any place where a self styled 'psychic' has shown the slighest ability to do any better than guesswork. They have never assisted in the slightest way in any case.

I guess that was my point. Just because you are unaware of any cases where a psychic's "leads" assisted/steered detectives in directions that resulted in the solving of a case doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Are you suggesting that when the detectives state that the "leads" the psychic provided helped them solve the case they're just blowing smoke?

[happyhaddock]

snowgirl said:

I guess that was my point. Just because you are unaware of any cases where a psychic's "leads" assisted/steered detectives in directions that resulted in the solving of a case doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Are you suggesting that when the detectives state that the "leads" the psychic provided helped them solve the case they're just blowing smoke?

I'm still not seeing evidence. So far you are merely confirming Shermer's hypotheses in "Why People Believe Weird Things".

[snowgirl]

artguy said:

snowgirl - I would be interested in seeing any tangible verifiable evidence you can produce that demonstrates any specific instance where a psychic was proven to have conclusively provided any unambiguous and accurate details of a crime that was not discovered or made available through any other resources.

Now, you and I both know I can't do that. But that doesn't mean anything. I didn't say they gave "accurate details of a crime". I said "leads" for lack of a better word. They "see" numbers, describe scenes ie; wooded areas, roads, areas with water such as lakes/streams. Turns out these things all play a part in the crime. Numbers ie; street numbers, part of addresses, road numbers, license plate numbers. Scenes could indicate where a body is, where the crime took place, etc. I didn't say this was an exact science. I did say psychics are usually called when investigators have hit a brickwall.

[snowgirl]

happyhaddock said:

I'm still not seeing evidence. So far you are merely confirming Shermer's hypotheses in "Why People Believe Weird Things".

I'm not in a position to provide "evidence" that psychics have helped investigators solve cases just as IMO you aren't in a position to provide evidence that no psychic has ever provided "leads" that helped investigators solve a case. I happen to believe there are prople with psychic powers, you obviously don't. I can't prove there are the same as you can't prove there are not. This is not a case of who's right or who's wrong.