Suspicious Minds

[fmk_RoI]

Seeing as nothing ever happens in cycling without a conspiracy theory being attached to it - Cookson burying the Verbruggen story on the day FIFA and the IAAF were hogging the headlines, Nike paying $500,000 to Verbruggen to deep six Armstrong's cortico positive, every new UCI president being given a file telling the truth about Arthur Linton, Tom Simpson and Marco Pantani - this seems like a worthwhile read:

“Whenever anything ambiguous happens, we have this bias towards assuming that it was intended – that somebody planned it, that there was some kind of purpose or agency behind it, rather than thinking it was just an accident, or chaos, or an unintended consequence of something.” This intentionality bias, Brotherton says, can be detected from early childhood. “If you ask a young kid why somebody sneezed, the kid thinks that they did it on purpose, that the person must really enjoy sneezing. It’s only after about the age of four or five that we begin to learn that not everything that everybody does is intended. We’re able to override that automatic judgment. But research shows that it still stays with us even into adulthood.”

link

 

[The Hitch]

Some people attach a conspiracy theory to everything. Some don't.

When it comes to doping at the top level or corruption at the top level, these crimes have been part of the system for so long.

 

[blackcat]

Elvis.

7-11

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Elvis.

7-11

Elvis rode for 7-Eleven? Is he secretly Taylor Phinney's father?

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Elvis.

7-11

Elvis rode for 7-Eleven? Is he secretly Taylor Phinney's father?

connie carpenter

 

[More Strides than Rides]

I get your point; there is both psychology and philosophy behind the way people turn events into narratives, both rightly and wrongly.

That being said, the fact that this fallacy exists doesn't mean we should avoid connecting events into narratives. And as far as sport goes, conspiracy theorists have a pretty good track record.

People say sports are like sausage, that you don't want to see how their made. We've seen how the meat is ground, packaged, and sold as sport. But when it comes down to it, we don't need to see how the product is made to know how its done. The conspiriacy theorists have been shown to be pretty good at figuring out how its done.

 

[wansteadimp]

Re: Re:

Elvis.

7-11

Elvis rode for 7-Eleven? Is he secretly Taylor Phinney's father?

He was caught in a trap.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

I get your point; there is both psychology and philosophy behind the way people turn events into narratives, both rightly and wrongly.

That being said, the fact that this fallacy exists doesn't mean we should avoid connecting events into narratives. And as far as sport goes, conspiracy theorists have a pretty good track record.

People say sports are like sausage, that you don't want to see how their made. We've seen how the meat is ground, packaged, and sold as sport. But when it comes down to it, we don't need to see how the product is made to know how its done. The conspiriacy theorists have been shown to be pretty good at figuring out how its done.

I never needed to read Reed [sic] Albergotti, Vanessa O'Connell and Juliet Macur's book, between Race Radio and Betsy Andreu I had enough background to the story that these books were mere white noise. My overarching line was so much more accurate without these individual anecdotes, because over a decade I had already built up the encyclopedia of these anecdotes.

There are individual facts I may be incorrect on (surely I will be wrong on some individual facts), but I can surely reach a higher truth with my own memory and collation of all the background information.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Re: Re:

Elvis.

7-11

Elvis rode for 7-Eleven? Is he secretly Taylor Phinney's father?

It would explain some of Taylor's sartorial choices.

 

[Benotti69]

WADA 2014 Lab stats. 6075 hGH blood tests globally. One positive.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Elvis.

7-11

Elvis rode for 7-Eleven? Is he secretly Taylor Phinney's father?

It would explain some of Taylor's sartorial choices.

Taylor Swift? shake shake shake it off hon

 

[Handy Bendy Ghandi]

Re: Re:

I get your point; there is both psychology and philosophy behind the way people turn events into narratives, both rightly and wrongly.

That being said, the fact that this fallacy exists doesn't mean we should avoid connecting events into narratives. And as far as sport goes, conspiracy theorists have a pretty good track record.

People say sports are like sausage, that you don't want to see how their made. We've seen how the meat is ground, packaged, and sold as sport. But when it comes down to it, we don't need to see how the product is made to know how its done. The conspiriacy theorists have been shown to be pretty good at figuring out how its done.

I never needed to read Reed [sic] Albergotti, Vanessa O'Connell and Juliet Macur's book, between Race Radio and Betsy Andreu I had enough background to the story that these books were mere white noise. My overarching line was so much more accurate without these individual anecdotes, because over a decade I had already built up the encyclopedia of these anecdotes.

There are individual facts I may be incorrect on (surely I will be wrong on some individual facts), but I can surely reach a higher truth with my own memory and collation of all the background information.

Can I ask why ?

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

I get your point; there is both psychology and philosophy behind the way people turn events into narratives, both rightly and wrongly.

That being said, the fact that this fallacy exists doesn't mean we should avoid connecting events into narratives. And as far as sport goes, conspiracy theorists have a pretty good track record.

People say sports are like sausage, that you don't want to see how their made. We've seen how the meat is ground, packaged, and sold as sport. But when it comes down to it, we don't need to see how the product is made to know how its done. The conspiriacy theorists have been shown to be pretty good at figuring out how its done.

I never needed to read Reed [sic] Albergotti, Vanessa O'Connell and Juliet Macur's book, between Race Radio and Betsy Andreu I had enough background to the story that these books were mere white noise. My overarching line was so much more accurate without these individual anecdotes, because over a decade I had already built up the encyclopedia of these anecdotes.

There are individual facts I may be incorrect on (surely I will be wrong on some individual facts), but I can surely reach a higher truth with my own memory and collation of all the background information.

Can I ask why ?

because I followed cycling and the internet cycling messageboards.

the "encyclopedia" was merely a code, or analogy, it was rhetoric I did not mean I printed it out, nor even kept a hardcopy book or the links to the individual posts...

there are many who have been around for the last dozen years who know of the handles of the other posters they communicate to

 

[Handy Bendy Ghandi]

Re: Re:

I get your point; there is both psychology and philosophy behind the way people turn events into narratives, both rightly and wrongly.

That being said, the fact that this fallacy exists doesn't mean we should avoid connecting events into narratives. And as far as sport goes, conspiracy theorists have a pretty good track record.

People say sports are like sausage, that you don't want to see how their made. We've seen how the meat is ground, packaged, and sold as sport. But when it comes down to it, we don't need to see how the product is made to know how its done. The conspiriacy theorists have been shown to be pretty good at figuring out how its done.

I never needed to read Reed [sic] Albergotti, Vanessa O'Connell and Juliet Macur's book, between Race Radio and Betsy Andreu I had enough background to the story that these books were mere white noise. My overarching line was so much more accurate without these individual anecdotes, because over a decade I had already built up the encyclopedia of these anecdotes.

There are individual facts I may be incorrect on (surely I will be wrong on some individual facts), but I can surely reach a higher truth with my own memory and collation of all the background information.

Can I ask why ?

because I followed cycling and the internet cycling messageboards.

the "encyclopedia" was merely a code, or analogy, it was rhetoric I did not mean I printed it out, nor even kept a hardcopy book or the links to the individual posts...

there are many who have been around for the last dozen years who know of the handles of the other posters they communicate to

Sorry, I wasn’t asking in order to have a dig, and I didn’t think you kept a room full of dusty dossiers like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory

I’m just rather intrigued, from a psychological perspective, on the entrenched opinions sometimes displayed………it’s almost like, post Voldemort’s exposure, that some people are left wondering what to do now and, whilst the majority of people still find it very interesting and good for a gossip and knowing nod to each other, there are some who seek to find subterfuge in everything – I’m surprised that no-one has suggested that Froome chased the butterfly whose flapping wings led to Hurricane Catrina……………and Kenya and North Korea both have the letter “K” in them……..and they’ve just tested a hydrogen bomb, eh, eh…………

Obviously, I could never be guilty of any bias or “coloured perception” of events…………..for example, I absolutely know (with the certainty of an Alabama religionist loon) that every time England are awarded a penalty at a ruck or maul or scrum, they definitely cheated and conned the referee !

 

[Rob27172]

The basic truth is a little simpler than a freudian childhood residual psychology.

Belief bias or self fulfilling prophecy as it is called has been a study for a long time
A classic study was done on car buying habits - most people do not notice what make or model or colour other cars on the road are, unless it is a bit special like a ferrari.
but when someone has decided they are going to buy a specific car in the future they will see many more of those cars around on the road.

This is because we as humans will always look to find things in the world around us that will cement our beliefs and choice. We see so many of the new choice of car because we want to be assured that it is a good choice there are obviously a lot of other people who have made the same choice.

And before those of you think this is hogwash and say you don't do it - a reverse study of people who do not look for patterns or instances of this not happening and they were found to look for the absence of things as much as the other people look for their own substantiation. So even if you don't think there are conspiracies and don't believe in the stories you will then look for other news sources or proof of these accidents to back up your belief system

 

[Handy Bendy Ghandi]

Re:

The basic truth is a little simpler than a freudian childhood residual psychology.

Belief bias or self fulfilling prophecy as it is called has been a study for a long time
A classic study was done on car buying habits - most people do not notice what make or model or colour other cars on the road are, unless it is a bit special like a ferrari.
but when someone has decided they are going to buy a specific car in the future they will see many more of those cars around on the road.

This is because we as humans will always look to find things in the world around us that will cement our beliefs and choice. We see so many of the new choice of car because we want to be assured that it is a good choice there are obviously a lot of other people who have made the same choice.

And before those of you think this is hogwash and say you don't do it - a reverse study of people who do not look for patterns or instances of this not happening and they were found to look for the absence of things as much as the other people look for their own substantiation. So even if you don't think there are conspiracies and don't believe in the stories you will then look for other news sources or proof of these accidents to back up your belief system

Of course everyone does it, although there’s a definite sliding scale of individual awareness that we’re exhibiting unconscious bias………………I mean, I’ve just admitted that I might have a miniscule degree of antipathy towards english rugby (if you can call rugby), but at least I realise that I might be displaying an infinitesimal amount of (entirely understandable) prejudice………….although only a raving lunatic with horrendous cognitive difficulties could possibly disagree with me, ‘cos I’m right I tells ya !

Anyway, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you, but I suppose I was merely suggesting that some of the conspiracy stuff suggested - in the Le Monde or motor doping threads for example – is verging on the amusing side of bonkers………….but, then again, everyone needs a hobby

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

A classic study was done

Link, for both parts?

 

[gillan1969]

Seeing as nothing ever happens in cycling without a conspiracy theory being attached to it - Cookson burying the Verbruggen story on the day FIFA and the IAAF were hogging the headlines, Nike paying $500,000 to Verbruggen to deep six Armstrong's cortico positive, every new UCI president being given a file telling the truth about Arthur Linton, Tom Simpson and Marco Pantani - this seems like a worthwhile read:

“Whenever anything ambiguous happens, we have this bias towards assuming that it was intended – that somebody planned it, that there was some kind of purpose or agency behind it, rather than thinking it was just an accident, or chaos, or an unintended consequence of something.” This intentionality bias, Brotherton says, can be detected from early childhood. “If you ask a young kid why somebody sneezed, the kid thinks that they did it on purpose, that the person must really enjoy sneezing. It’s only after about the age of four or five that we begin to learn that not everything that everybody does is intended. We’re able to override that automatic judgment. But research shows that it still stays with us even into adulthood.”

link

there's nothing really ambigious about pro cycling and doping

They...eh...dope...generally lots of them with lots of dope

This has been proven again and again and again and again ad nauseum......................

Obviously it becomes of interest to speculate as to why those not popped have not been popped

and history tells us its not because they ain't doping........

so not really a conspiracy theory...more a possible/probable explanation

 

[Benotti69]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Sport_Integrity/status/685126034669318144

Fabricated documents to cover up doping malpractices? What a crazy conspiracy theory......

 

[blackcat]

Re:

The basic truth is a little simpler than a freudian childhood residual psychology.

Belief bias or self fulfilling prophecy as it is called has been a study for a long time
A classic study was done on car buying habits - most people do not notice what make or model or colour other cars on the road are, unless it is a bit special like a ferrari.
but when someone has decided they are going to buy a specific car in the future they will see many more of those cars around on the road.

This is because we as humans will always look to find things in the world around us that will cement our beliefs and choice. We see so many of the new choice of car because we want to be assured that it is a good choice there are obviously a lot of other people who have made the same choice.

And before those of you think this is hogwash and say you don't do it - a reverse study of people who do not look for patterns or instances of this not happening and they were found to look for the absence of things as much as the other people look for their own substantiation. So even if you don't think there are conspiracies and don't believe in the stories you will then look for other news sources or proof of these accidents to back up your belief system

the thing about confirmation bias... if one is aware of this phenomenon, you can also transpose that political-economic lens over the top, or even underneath it,

so if you put this lens over the confirmation bias, it does manage to filter the bias to a degree. I know my default setting is "they are all rat b@st@rds*" who are doping. *that was actually a line from Millar re:the media, in BloodSweat&Gears slipstream film.

so my default setting, is, everyone is on something (lets say 95%) effectively everyone. My main allegation wrt these brilliant performances, is not, oh, he coulda done it clean... but... he BEAT all the other doping dopers soooo convincingly I cannot believe the other doping dopers were so inferior on this day. My finger is less pointed at the individual on the top step, than all the individuals he beat. Or she beat. If he was clean and he beat all the doping dopers then that is more fool to all the doping dopers that sit beneath him, an entire peloton of doping dopers.

And if anyone thinks I am having a go at the peloton, I agree with Helmut Roole on the doping dopers. This is not a pejorative, I am value-neutral on this (currently, I did a Damascene conversion). So if you think I am judging the peloton, this is merely a transference from you the reader

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Of course everyone does it, although there’s a definite sliding scale of individual awareness that we’re exhibiting unconscious bias………………I mean, I’ve just admitted that I might have a miniscule degree of antipathy towards english rugby (if you can call rugby), but at least I realise that I might be displaying an infinitesimal amount of (entirely understandable) prejudice………….although only a raving lunatic with horrendous cognitive difficulties could possibly disagree with me, ‘cos I’m right I tells ya !

Anyway, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you, but I suppose I was merely suggesting that some of the conspiracy stuff suggested - in the Le Monde or motor doping threads for example – is verging on the amusing side of bonkers………….but, then again, everyone needs a hobby

I think my position is a little more nuanced, and I can recognise alternative theories and validity. I am content to be wrong and then make any revision of my previous opinion.