My Thoughts On Conspiracies And Conspiracy Theories

[Kyle M]

Ironic that even though you are inheritly smarter and infinitely more knowledgeable, kyle is probably more successful and occupies a higher social position.

Kyle reminds me of the socially adroit middle manager who doesn't understand (nor doe he attempt to) the functional aspect of the work he oversees.

Travis reminds me of the intellectually gifted aspie who's lack of interest in monkey politics keeps him from being promoted.

There's a lot of research that shows that "normies" like Kyle live in a socially defined reality where objective facts don't matter as much as socially accepted beliefs. Herd mentality if you will.@Travis im very curious what you think of my take on the subject. @Kyle M you as well.

It might simply be the case of two divergent brain morphologies talking past each other

Can't say I've ever been called a "normie." Have you read my blog? It's weird af

 

[Travis]

Interesting you could tell I was mumbling over text. Actually I said that the hydrated radius of potassium is smaller than that of sodium, and that ATP is an adsorbent to the surface of proteins, with its three phosphates pulling in positive ions.

No its not. That is not at all what you said. Besides: ATP is only know to complex with one ion at a time. Gilbert Ling had actually imagined that electronic induction (his ƒ‐value) through the peptide bond was responsible for ionic K⁺/Na⁺ attraction by shifting the c‐value of glutamate and aspartate residues—nothing at all like the unrealistically‐conflated Ling‐chimera you'd obviously made‐up just now.

Maybe you're just upset that you argued with me so over catastrophic global warming many months ago, and are slowly learning how silly your position was?

My position has always been that temperature must increase with increasing CO₂, as this follows directly from Beer's Law. I can't remember your position (or was it doggystyle?)

I know a bit of your type too, big fish little pond. Nothing you write will ever see print or be read by people outside of small communities like this, where you feel like a big man on campus.

I don't think starting a blog would be particularly difficult—especially one having eight non‐author comments total—or would be publishing something with a paper circulation, considering the type of junk commonly published.

I suppose you are that. And you don't use your photograph in your avatar, likely because you look bad and it would hurt your credibility that you so arduously work to build and maintain here.

Gradeschool Kyle with his latest. I would guess over 90% of people here are just using a random avatar from Google Images. Have you considered using a random image yourself?

 

[Travis]

Ironic that even though you are inheritly smarter and infinitely more knowledgeable, kyle is probably more successful and occupies a higher social position.

Kyle reminds me of the socially adroit middle manager who doesn't understand (nor doe he attempt to) the functional aspect of the work he oversees.

Travis reminds me of the intellectually gifted aspie who's lack of interest in monkey politics keeps him from being promoted.

There's a lot of research that shows that "normies" like Kyle live in a socially defined reality where objective facts don't matter as much as socially accepted beliefs. Herd mentality if you will.

For most people, social and sexual selection trumps natural selection. So if they hold certain beliefs about the world that are untrue and could get them killed (i.e. grizzlies are cute and cuddly) it's not nearly as harmful as holding true beliefs that are unpopular or harmful to their socially status (thus reducing their chances of reproduction). Eventually you get a people that are plain out schizophrenic.

That's how cults, religions, fandoms, and pretty much any ridiculous subculture works. A bunch of "normie" schizophrenics succumbing to a convergent delusion. A grand folie de deux.

As an aside, I've been lucky enough to watch certain sly, socially adroit individuals go into a new social atmospheres and espouse the popular political or religious belief with such conviction that they even had me fooled. Watching them, I could see these people becoming head of the church or political gathering...but thatd another topic altogether. I don't think these people were "normies" as some normies actually believe the things they say. They were a different sort. I notice they tended to rub their hands a lot.

Anyways, aspies don't suffer from this convergent delusion mentality. New research is showing that aspies and schizophrenics are opposite sides of the same coin. Aspies often have more brain mass than average in the same locations where schizophrenics have less brian mass than average. Aspies are less likely to suffer from the delusions normies suffer from like a belief in guardian angels or fate or pre determined purpose. Schizos are more likely to suffer from them.

@Travis im very curious what you think of my take on the subject. @Kyle M you as well.

It might simply be the case of two divergent brain morphologies talking past each other

I think all brains are about the same, but there is a considerable difference between neurotransmitters. The difference between a schizophrenic and a non‐schizophrenic appears to be just a few histamine‐releasing mast cells and perhaps some gluten exorphin B5/C. There's a considerable amount of evidence linking gluten, mast cells, histamine, exorphins, and smoking to schizophrenia—smoking ostensibly being correlated because nicotine opposes histamine in the brain. Add to this the β-casomorphins, and I think a considerable amount of our psychology is dependent on the peptide fraction of the foods we eat.

And there is serotonin (tryptophan) as well, of course, which can have considerable effects of its own. This neurotransmitter has of course been proven to affect psychology and the dietary Fernstrom ratio has been proven to determine brain serotonin.

Who was it that said something along the lines of: 'The English will rule over the Scots so long as they are eating beef and the other potatoes.'?

I did have another thought on the foreshadowing, and that is this: The only way to be certain of a convincing demolition would be through the use of a subsonic thermitic material—as was found by Harrit—still having enough velocity for accurate timing. Since this material likely hadn't been known to exist before ~1993, a convincing demolition could not even have been planned before this time and hence could not have been intentionally foreshadowed. By accepting this logic, any discussion of foreshadowing before circa 1995 would have to be discounted as improbable.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Can't say I've ever been called a "normie." Have you read my blog? It's weird af

Normie is relative. You blog isn't weird.

I think all brains are about the same, but there is a considerable difference between neurotransmitters. The difference between a schizophrenic and a non‐schizophrenic appears to be just a few histamine‐releasing mast cells and perhaps some gluten exorphin B5/C. There's a considerable amount of evidence linking gluten, mast cells, histamine, exorphins, and smoking to schizophrenia—smoking ostensibly being correlated because nicotine opposes histamine in the brain. Add to this the β-casomorphins, and I think a considerable amount of our psychology is dependent on the peptide fraction of the foods we eat.

There's a huge different between autism and apergers and the quote below should be looked at as referring to aspergers, the hyperintelligent differently abled children studied by hans aspergers, and not autism, the inflammatory brain condition. They like to purposefully confuse the two for some suspicious reason.

Brain Size, Early Growth: Clues to Autism’s Causes | TIME.com

Heather Hazlett, in the department of psychiatry at the Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities, and her colleagues studied MRI images of 38 children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) at 2 years old and compared them with the scans from 21 unaffected youngsters of the same age. All the children were scanned again at age 4 or 5, and at all stages, the children with ASD had on average 6% more total brain volume and 9% more volume in the cerebral cortex, the region of the brain that contains the “newest” sprouting of neurons and is responsible for everything from receiving signals and input from the environment to processing memory and attention.

The findings suggest that although autistic brains are bigger, their rate of growth is relatively normal, at least after age 2. Some time before 2, however, autistic children may experience a spurt in brain growth that is strongly linked to their later behavioral and developmental symptoms.

The group also found that the children with autism [read: aspergers] had more surface area in their cortex, in the form of greater convolutions and in-foldings of the tissue. That suggests that new nerve cells are being produced and pushed to the cortex surface, something that autism researchers had not known before.

So if aspies have larger prefrontal cortexes what about schizos?

Regional thinning of the cerebral cortex in schizophrenia: effects of diagnosis, age and antipsychotic medication.

Morphological abnormalities of the cerebral cortex have been reported in a number of MRI-studies in schizophrenia. Uncertainty remains regarding cause, mechanism and progression of the alterations. It has been suggested that antipsychotic medication reduces total gray matter volumes, but results are inconsistent. In the present study differences in regional cortical thickness between 96 patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia (n=81) or schizoaffective disorder (n=15) and 107 healthy subjects (mean age 42 years, range 17-57 years) were investigated using MRI and computer image analysis. Cortical thickness was estimated as the shortest distance between the gray/white matter border and the pial surface at numerous points across the entire cortical mantle. The influence of age and antipsychotic medication on variation in global and regional cortical thickness was explored. Thinner cortex among patients than controls was found in prefrontal and temporal regions of both hemispheres, while parietal and occipital regions were relatively spared. Some hemispheric specificity was noted, as regions of the prefrontal cortex were more affected in the right hemisphere, and regions of the temporal cortex in the left hemisphere. No significant interaction effect of age and diagnostic group on variation in cortical thickness was demonstrated. Among patients, dose or type of antipsychotic medication did not affect variation in cortical thickness. The results from this hitherto largest study on the topic show that prefrontal and temporal cortical thinning in patients with schizophrenia compared to controls is as pronounced in older as in younger subjects. The lack of significant influence from antipsychotic medication supports that regional cortical thinning is an inherent feature of the neurobiological disease process in schizophrenia.

Autism and schizophrenia could be genetic opposites

The researchers found four regions in the genome which dramatically affect the risk of autism or schizophrenia. Called “copy-number variants”, these are stretches of DNA with seemingly accidental duplications or deletions. Crespi’s team found that the presence of a particular variant – a duplication, say – was often associated with autism while the opposite variation – a deletion of the genetic material – was linked to schizophrenia.

The results fit with other evidence that autism may be caused by overdevelopment of specific brain regions and schizophrenia by underdevelopment, says Crespi.

Very interesting no?

I did have another thought on the foreshadowing, and that is this: The only way to be certain of a convincing demolition would be through the use of a subsonic thermitic material—as was found by Harrit—still having enough velocity for accurate timing. Since this material likely hadn't been known to exist before ~1993, a convincing demolition could not even have been planned before this time and hence could not have been intentionally foreshadowed. By accepting this logic, any discussion of foreshadowing before circa 1995 should be discounted as improbable.

They don't foreshadow demolition they foreshadow a plane running into the twin towers.

I think the foreshadow argument is a red herring. There's no definite conclusion (unless you start looking into the connection between the people behind the movies, comic books, tv shows, and the owner of the twin towers) to be had on that.

but there is one on 9/11. It was controlled demolition.

 

[x-ray peat]

The protagonist in this movie is 100% vindicated in his conspiracy theorizing.

Didn’t we just agree that it’s important not to cherry pick the facts? Anyway I guess old habits are hard to break so I will take the bait.

The psychology involved in manipulating the masses is much more complicated than you seem to be implying. There are plenty of movies, TV shows, advertisements etc that portray Conspiracy Theorists as both incorrect, and as nutcases. That is sufficient to keep most people from investigating or wanting to talk about any conspiracy. However there are many others who do believe in conspiracies and these people also need to be controlled. That I think was the purpose of this movie.

The very choice in naming it "Conspiracy Theory” puts out a siren call to this latter group. People who have been programmed to reflexively avoid conspiracy theories would have no interest in seeing the movie. However, a real Conspiracy Theorist would be drawn to it like Fox Mulder to an alien autopsy.

So even though Mel Gibson is correct about the conspiracy, just think about what was his reward for being correct. He was treated as a wack-job, tortured, imprisoned, hunted, and almost killed. Finally he has to fake his own death in order to survive. The lesson seems pretty clear; even having the truth on your side is not enough. Most people looking at that outcome would think twice before they risk losing everything in a battle to get the truth out. Better to just keep quiet and go with the flow.

I can understand not willing to accept that the 9/11 programming as that does strain credulity, but to not see how much our thinking is programmed by the media in every way imaginable seems a bit naïve. Just take as an example the emasculation of the American male. Do you really think it was an accident that every TV show, movie or book of the last 50 years has presented the American father as an idiot? This is just one example that you may have noticed but I can assure you that this same technique is used in thousands of ways to engineer the society they want.

 

[x-ray peat]

I did have another thought on the foreshadowing, and that is this: The only way to be certain of a convincing demolition would be through the use of a subsonic thermitic material—as was found by Harrit—still having enough velocity for accurate timing. Since this material likely hadn't been known to exist before ~1993, a convincing demolition could not even have been planned before this time and hence could not have been intentionally foreshadowed. By accepting this logic, any discussion of foreshadowing before circa 1995 would have to be discounted as improbable.

You are giving the American people far too much credit. There are so many other obvious anomalies to 9/11 that this wouldn’t change a thing. Remember there was an entire 3rd building that also came down that most people don’t even know about.

The fact is that the media can make most people believe anything. If they say over and over that there were no sounds of explosions then most people will believe that there were no explosions. In fact there were plenty of witnesses who reported hearing loud explosions within the building. Yet nobody cared because the media told them not to care. This is about mass psychology. It has very little to do with science.

I would also add that what we think is cutting edge science may be very old technology. Some say that what is researched at the University level is already 50 years old as compared to what is going on in secret.

 

[thomas00]

Purely out of curiousity, where do the hijackers fit into the 'controlled demolition' theory of 9/11?

Were they part of the plan, or just an unbelievably well timed coincidence that gave the 'official story' the perfect cover?

 

[goodandevil]

Purely out of curiousity, where do the hijackers fit into the 'controlled demolition' theory of 9/11?

Were they part of the plan, or just an unbelievably well timed coincidence that gave the 'official story' the perfect cover?

Two things will come to be accepted as "facts", though they're not. First, that saudi arabia was behind 9/11, and that we should sever ties with saudi arabia. Second, that the jews are behind saudi arabia, and the middle eastern wars, and are also responsible. This harvey weinstein thing for example is the start of it. Anyways, we'll believe it to our own detriment. 9/11 was an inside job, but we should beware the explanations given us. Of course the proles won't care because they dont think for themselves, like kyle for example.

Also, Kyle sucks.

 

[Such_Saturation]

the jews are behind saudi arabia, and the middle eastern wars, and are also responsible.

Can’t wait

 

[Kyle M]

Didn’t we just agree that it’s important not to cherry pick the facts? Anyway I guess old habits are hard to break so I will take the bait.

You don't seem to understand that when YOU present something to ME, and I RESPOND saying that example (of the two you gave) shows the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claimed, that is not ME cherry picking. What is so hard about that?

Now, if you gave me 20 examples of movies like that, and I came back with ONE that wasn't on your list but was the only one I could find to the contrary, THAT would be cherry picking on my part to try and counter you.

 

[Kyle M]

No its not. That is not at all what you said. Besides: ATP is only know to complex with one ion at a time. Gilbert Ling had actually imagined that electronic induction (his ƒ‐value) through the peptide bond was responsible for ionic K⁺/Na⁺ attraction by shifting the c‐value of glutamate and aspartate residues—nothing at all like the unrealistically‐conflated Ling‐chimera you'd obviously made‐up just now.

Assisting the adsorptive abilities of a huge (compared to the ions themselves) surface like a protein is not necessary a phenomenon of "complexing" in a 1-1 binding fashion. Certain Ling hasn't explained everything about ATP function, but his explanation is much better than the made up "high energy phosphate bond coupling" explanation that is still considered correct in all of mainstream biomedical science. His ideas are the basis for the alternatives, including yours.

My position has always been that temperature must increase with increasing CO₂, as this follows directly from Beer's Law. I can't remember your position (or was it doggystyle?)

This was a long argument, but you refused to acknowledge that the resonance band for CO2 and its capacity for heat trapping are already saturated at current levels, making CO2 unimportant in global mean temperature today. Of course CO2, like all "greenhouse gases," increase temperature in a vacuum. That is a statement with no context. The global warming debate is about how much, and what is historically responsible for changes in earth's climate, and all of that. You came down on the side that CO2 was and will continue to be an important determinant of global mean temperature anomaly, something that simply isn't true. The earth's albedo is the most important factor, by several orders of magnitude more than CO2. Maybe you were grasping at minutiae just to have an argument, I don't know.

I don't think starting a blog would be particularly difficult—especially one having eight non‐author comments total—or would be publishing something with a paper circulation, considering the type of junk commonly published.

Do it then. I write for more than just my blog, and am always trying to expand what I'm doing, not confining myself to a small and friendly audience. I give talks too, and go on podcasts. Maybe you should bless the world with spreading your genius around in that fashion. I just submitted an article on economics using biological ideas, why can't you do something like that? I have no credentials in economics...just ideas.

Gradeschool Kyle with his latest. I would guess over 90% of people here are just using a random avatar from Google Images. Have you considered using a random image yourself?

I use an avatar from an anime on a video games forum, but on a health forum where I (and you, and everyone else here) am giving health advice, it is extremely disingenuous to hide your appearance. I can only assume when someone talks like a guru but hides their face that they look like garbage.

About publications etc., I will say one more thing. Before that, I'd really like to de-escalate this. My perception is that I'm responding in kind to ad hominem and insults, maybe you see it differently. At any rate, there's no real purpose to the snootyness.

the reading and thinking you do about science is great. I wish more people did that, both in and outside of the field itself. There is no reason why more people can't have a deeper understanding, and digest primary and secondary literature themselves rather than relying on doctors and gurus and journalists. Scientists having an open mind about science would be the biggest benefit to science we could have at this point. The incentives, unfortunately, are not in that direction.

However

Truly understanding science and being able to contextualize and criticize it requires more than the sterile consumption of text in your home. The experiments you read about, they actually happen, real people perform them with their own hands. It's like someone reading an anatomy book all day but never touching a human body and acting like they know everything there is to know about it. The physical reality of science, the process, is important to understanding the results. That's why I got into the field, to immerse myself in the reality, not just the textual representation of that reality. There is no way to shortcut this, as a book about sex can't teach you what sex is like, and a book about sports can't teach you how to play sports, but can only enhance knowledge gained from experience. As humans, there are some things that can only be fully absorbed through direct, physical experience. It's part of our neurocircuitry, and asymmetrically dumping textual "facts" into the brain without a balance of physical experience causes problems of contextualization and compartmentalization.

It is impossible, truly, to explain to someone who does not have hands on experience with science, and person to person interactions with scientists, what the value in that is. Suffice to say that not all methods and results are created equally, and there are very important things to learn in science that cannot be gained through reading alone. And unfortunately, instead of inculcating humbleness in one, an asymmetric dependence on huge amounts of purely second-hand information seems to lend an extreme arrogance, as we see here.

 

[Kyle M]

I can understand not willing to accept that the 9/11 programming as that does strain credulity, but to not see how much our thinking is programmed by the media in every way imaginable seems a bit naïve. Just take as an example the emasculation of the American male. Do you really think it was an accident that every TV show, movie or book of the last 50 years has presented the American father as an idiot? This is just one example that you may have noticed but I can assure you that this same technique is used in thousands of ways to engineer the society they want.

I agree with you that "taking down" the adult male is not a coincidence. That does not mean, necessarily, that it is part of a centralized, complex plan.

That's really where I differ from you, you seem to operate on a dichotomous path, where things are either A) coincidence, nothing to see here or B) centralized, cabal-style shadowy conspiracy by an all-powerful "them."

I see several other possibilities to explain things in the world. I have repeated his name ad nauseam here and assume to no use, but the writings and lectures of Murray Rothbard informed my thinking on this greatly. The way he explains the 19th and early 20th century American political landscape as a battle between Rockefeller and Morgan interests is scholarly and compelling and, unlike so many other conspiracy theories, 100% documented and irrefutable.

Now, of course anything and everything *could be* part of a vast, incomprehensible centralized conspiracy, but when people won't or can't entertain another explanation, I see that as a very bad sign. Perhaps you just don't see that there are possibilities outside of A and B above.

 

[Kyle M]

Normie is relative. You blog isn't weird.

What do you consider a "normie?" Am I a normie because I have an actual job in science? Is Ray Peat a normie? I think you found that word third hand from someone to someone to someone from 4chan or something and don't understand it's use properly.

 

[Kyle M]

but there is one on 9/11. It was controlled demolition.

I'm partial to the "energy weapon" idea myself. The towers looked like they were disintegrating *as they fell* to me, as explained in those videos about how to do that to metal with energy weapons.

 

[Kyle M]

haha which one of you was this?

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

I'm partial to the "energy weapon" idea myself. The towers looked like they were disintegrating *as they fell* to me, as explained in those videos about how to do that to metal with energy weapons.

It was a controlled demolition. They all look like that.

haha which one of you was this?

Lol

 

[x-ray peat]

You don't seem to understand that when YOU present something to ME, and I RESPOND saying that example (of the two you gave) shows the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claimed, that is not ME cherry picking. What is so hard about that?

Now, if you gave me 20 examples of movies like that, and I came back with ONE that wasn't on your list but was the only one I could find to the contrary, THAT would be cherry picking on my part to try and counter you.

Not sure why you are shouting, but “EXACTLY” as I claimed, Mel Gibson’s character was portrayed as a crackpot conspiracy theorist; whether or not he was ultimately correct isn’t the issue. Now if you didn’t choose to cherry pick my comments once again, you would understand why his being correct was important to the programming but then you may risk the chance of actually learning something you didn't already know.

 

[x-ray peat]

I agree with you that "taking down" the adult male is not a coincidence. That does not mean, necessarily, that it is part of a centralized, complex plan.

That's really where I differ from you, you seem to operate on a dichotomous path, where things are either A) coincidence, nothing to see here or B) centralized, cabal-style shadowy conspiracy by an all-powerful "them."

I see several other possibilities to explain things in the world. I have repeated his name ad nauseam here and assume to no use, but the writings and lectures of Murray Rothbard informed my thinking on this greatly. The way he explains the 19th and early 20th century American political landscape as a battle between Rockefeller and Morgan interests is scholarly and compelling and, unlike so many other conspiracy theories, 100% documented and irrefutable.

Now, of course anything and everything *could be* part of a vast, incomprehensible centralized conspiracy, but when people won't or can't entertain another explanation, I see that as a very bad sign. Perhaps you just don't see that there are possibilities outside of A and B above.

Ad nauseum is certainly the appropriate word. It’s unfortunate that your reading is so limited to one school of thought that you are completely missing the bigger picture.

And again Ill just ignore your usual ad hominems. Seems to be like a security blanket for your fragile ego.

 

[Kyle M]

Not sure why you are shouting, but “EXACTLY” as I claimed, Mel Gibson’s character was portrayed as a crackpot conspiracy theorist; whether or not he was ultimately correct isn’t the issue. Now if you didn’t choose to cherry pick my comments once again, you would understand why his being correct was important to the programming but then you may risk the chance of actually learning something you didn't already know.

I was capitalizing important words, making sure that you realize that it was you, not me, that presented that piece of information as one of two examples.

You really don't know what cherry picking is. You just put a label on anyone who disagrees with you. The bottom line is, your worldview cannot sustain a disagreement that isn't an error or controlled opposition. I asked you before how, using your worldview, you could prove to me that you aren't controlled opposition. You can't, and if you can't do that, or you can't imagine a disagreement out of good faith (not ignorance or malice), then your worldview is useless.

 

[Kyle M]

Ad nauseum is certainly the appropriate word. It’s unfortunate that your reading is so limited to one school of thought that you are completely missing the bigger picture.

And again Ill just ignore your usual ad hominems. Seems to be like a security blanket for your fragile ego.

Because I repeatedly recommend one author, you think that's all I've read? That's the kind of false dichotomy thinking I'm trying to point out to you. You may not know this, but it's possible to be very broadly and well-read while still harping on one author for a particular topic.