Myths and other conspiracies spread because they create a feeling of satisfaction
Conspiracy myths are a well-worn subject of the human mind, first of all because they do great service to our desire to understand the world.
Indeed, these myths are based on a very satisfying revelation effect for the mind, a feeling close to what we feel when we discover the solution to an enigma: it is a question of giving coherence to facts that had not previously had any, of finding a link between apparently independent events by showing that they are tied, in the shadows, by the will of a group or an individual.
These myths are often spectacular and easily strike people's minds. Subsequently, they are easily memorised, which is a major asset for their dissemination on the cognitive market. Moreover, those who make the conspiracy myth their own have the feeling that they know more about it than anyone else and are therefore less naive than they are. Hence, it is not always easy to convince him of the inanity of his arguments, because he quickly sees his interlocutor as the mediator of an official doctrine that he intends to fight. If we add to this that conspiracy myths often flatter stereotypes or all forms of sub-cultures, it is easy to understand that it is not necessary to be irrational to find them attractive.
The layperson's social understanding, we suggest, rests on three related convictions about the relation between his or her subjective experience ...
The results (ed. of the study): only 1 percent of the executives said managers should bother showing employees that their work makes a difference. If anything, many companies try to explain the value our work will have in our own lives, the benefits we will reap if we hit a goal, as opposed to the benefit that others will derive.
But remember our biology we are more inspired and motivated when we know we are helping biologically others.
The sensed presence usually happens to individuals who have become isolated in an extreme or unusual environment, often when high ...
If one compares the behaviour of the bird at the top of the pecking list, the despot, with that of one very far down, the second or third from the last, then one finds the latter much more cruel to the few others over whom he lords it than the former in his treatment of all members. As soon as one removes from the group all members above the penultimate, his behaviour becomes milder and may even become very friendly... it is not difficult to find analogies to this in human societies, and therefore one side of such behaviour must be primarily the effects of the social groupings, and not of individual characteristics.
Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal.