Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2022/Conspiracy theory motivation
Heading casing[edit source]
Hi KingMob221. FYI, the recommended Wikiversity heading style uses sentence casing. For example: Self-determination theory rather than Self-Determination Theory Here's an example chapter with correct heading casing: Growth mindset development -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC) |
Topic development feedback[edit source]
The topic development has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to see editing changes made whilst reviewing this chapter plan. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Topic development marks are available via UCLearn. Note that marks are based on what was available before the due date, whereas the comments below may also be about all material on the page at the time of providing this feedback. |
Title[edit source]
User page[edit source]
Social contribution[edit source]
Headings[edit source]
Key points[edit source]
Figure[edit source]
References[edit source]
Resources[edit source]
|
-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Content Suggestion[edit source]
Hi there. Brandolini's law states: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."
This may be useful in your overview about the dangers of conspiracy theories? check out the Wikipedia page for Brandolini's law if you are interested. U3162201 (discuss • contribs) 01:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Suggested source: Thinking Preferences and Conspiracy Belief[edit source]
Hi There! Not sure if you've checked this source out yet but I thought it could provide helpful information. It discusses the Jumping-to conclusion bias and if it has a more pronounced rate in those who display a strong belief in conspiracy theories.
[1]https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.568942/full BenjiD'Ange (discuss • contribs) 06:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Book chapter review and feedback[edit source]
This chapter has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing through the chapter. Chapter marks will be available via UCLearn along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements. |
Overall[edit source]
Overview[edit source]
Theory – Breadth[edit source]
Theory – Depth[edit source]
Research – Key findings[edit source]
Research – Critical thinking[edit source]
Integration[edit source]
Conclusion[edit source]
Written expression – Style[edit source]
Written expression – Learning features[edit source]
Social contribution[edit source]
|
-- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
The "conspiracy theorist" archetype as a method for discrediting dissent and other inconveniences.[edit source]
It seems likely that this trope or archetype is maintained as a fixture of popular culture for the purpose of casting doubt and uncertainty upon various inconvenient disclosures and dissent. In other words, someone who claims that the earth is flat and builds such a reputation around various false or incredulous claims, or even just presents such an appearance, would then be a poor representative for a given disclosure or scandal and may harm the credibility of certain people or information merely by association alone. Or rather, that's what I'd do if I wanted to ruin the credibility of some disclosure or political objective. Send a bunch of kooks to lend their "authority" to the matter. I think the article needs to at least acknowledge this possibility, which is self-evident as a public relations strategy. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 23:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I implore the author(s) to consider this carefully, and I'll ping @Jtneill: since they seem to be the primary author. I'm hardly the first person to observe that psychiatry is frequently abused to pathologize dissent or otherwise control public opinion. Broadly, the article conflates "conspiratorial beliefs" with irrational thought patterns, and obviously this might give the reader a skewed perspective. I could go on, but I'll wait to see what others have to say. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)