The extraordinary belief I am interested in involves superstition called “Bad Luck”, especially the number 13 and conspiracy behind it. It is considered one of the more common superstitious beliefs that are found around the world and known as a synonym for “Bad Luck”. Research shows that 1 out of four people consider themselves superstitious. The interesting aspect about “Bad luck” is that it is so universal and anywhere you go you discover a new/different sign of bad luck. It is common to see people avoid the number 13 in and around elevators, hotels, airlines, etc.

There is a lot of controversy around the statistical proof to support this superstition. While some researchers state that, “No data exists, and will never exist, to confirm that the number 13 is an unlucky number”, there should not be a reason to think that any number is more unlucky than another. However, others published findings that indicates otherwise. As an example, they analyzed traffic flow and car accidents on a motorway during 5 months that the 13th fell on a friday during a 2 year long period. Comparing these data to data collected on other dates it showed that transport accidents “increased by as much as 52% percent”.

A cognitive contribution to this belief could be religious, which I will expand on later, but also the term called triskaidekaphobia, which is an irrational fear of  the number 13. Another reason the belief exist can be due to confirmation bias and self fulfilling prophecies. Confirmation bias is the tendency to ignore evidence that would disconfirm your belief and only focus on evidence that would ‘confirm’ their existing beliefs. Self fulfilling prophecy can be another factor while superstitious belief exists. It is a belief that tend to become true, because we already belief in it, which shapes our way of acting towards it and reinforces the belief to become true.

This extraordinary belief  about the unlucky number 13 can be traced back to biblical times.  Over time, there have been various reasons why people consider it an unlucky number, tracing back to Christianity. “Some believe this is unlucky because one of those thirteen, Judas Iscariot, was the betrayer of Jesus Christ. From the 1890s, a number of English language sources relate the “unlucky” thirteen to an idea that at the Last Supper, Judas, the disciple who betrayed Jesus, was the 13th to sit at the table.” It is likely that many Christians hold this extraordinary belief.

After reviewing the entire concepts and history of the extraordinary belief of number #13, it mostly seems that Heuristics such as Confirmation Bias and self-fulfilling prophecies play a role. It seems that many groups of people take an example from history where the number 13 may have been unlucky and use it to justify the belief as a whole.  

Cited work:

https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-superstition-and-why-people-believe-in-the-unbelievable-97043

https://www.livescience.com/14147-number-13-bad-luck.html

http://www.triskaidekaphobia.info

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psychology-writers/201210/using-self-fulfilling-prophecies-your-advantage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_(number)

The Bermuda Triangle by Affie Siddiqui

A history of speculation surrounds the area west of Florida, south of Puerto Rico, and north of Bermuda called the Bermuda Triangle. The Bermuda Triangle is the area that over 50 ships and dozens of planes have disappeared. Multiple theories have formulated to explain this phenomenon, the first being the “Methane Gas Theory.” Some scientists have claimed the reason ships and planes disappear is that of the methane gas and oil deposits found at the bottom of the sea. The mass of the gas and oil can cause large eruptions that burst through the surface. Another theory claims the disappearances are due to no more than “rogue waves”. Oceanographer Simon Boxall of University of Southampton claimed the reason there are no traces of the missing ships and planes because “there are storms to the south and north which come together and additional ones that come from Florida.” In addition to the “Rogue Wave Theory,” there is the “Sargasso Sea Theory.” The Sargasso Sea is the area within the Bermuda Triangle where ocean currents meet to bind the certain spot and could trap ships that pass through as it causes them to stop moving. As there are many more theories ranging from practical to supernatural, there are contrasting theories that use more rationale to explain the Bermuda Triangle disappearances. Karl Kruszelnicki, an Australian scientist who performed research on the Bermuda Triangle, declared that the missing vessels and planes are nothing but “human error, bad weather, heavy air, and sea traffic.” The unconvinced scientists insisted the high rate of ships and planes that went missing was nothing supernatural, just unfortunate circumstances. The US Coastguard was asked to reflect on the disappearances to which they concluded, “The number that go missing in the Bermuda Triangle is about the same as everywhere else in the world.” There are logical explanations for the boats and planes to go missing as well as theories regarding alien abduction. Although there are reasonable explanations, many are skeptical about the declarations of Kruszelnicki and the US Coastguard regarding the Bermuda Triangle.

Work Cited

Bhattacharya, Raj. “Bermuda Triangle Theories That Will Stun You.” Bermuda Attractions, www.bermuda-attractions.com/bermuda2_000061.htm.

Dennis, Felix. “Bermuda Triangle: Five Theories on the Mysterious Disappearances.” The Week UK, The Week UK, 3 Aug. 2018, www.theweek.co.uk/95557/bermuda-triangle-five-theories-on-the-mysterious-disappearances.

Ferreira, Becky. “Atlantis, Aliens, and Time Warps: The Enduring Mystery of the Bermuda Triangle.” Motherboard, VICE, 13 Aug. 2018, motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ev8kam/the-enduring-mystery-of-the-bermuda-triangle-and-its-many-scientific-explanations.

Lusher, Adam. “Scientist ‘Solves’ Mystery of the Bermuda Triangle – by Claiming There Was No Mystery in the First Place.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 27 July 2017, www.independent.co.uk/news/science/bermuda-triangle-mystery-solved-latest-theories-dr-karl-kruszelnicki-debunked-unexplained-a7861731.html.

Radford, Benjamin. “Bermuda Triangle: Where Facts Disappear.” LiveScience, Purch, 25 Sept. 2012, www.livescience.com/23435-bermuda-triangle.html.

The sasquatch, or wood ape, commonly known as bigfoot due to its enormous foot prints, resembles a mix between a gorilla and a human. Bigfoot is covered in reddish-brown hair similar to that of an orangutan and walks on two legs. There have been claims of bigfoot sightings all over north America, Canada, and even some in the Himalayan mountains. Sightings of the beast-like human occur mainly in dense forests, far from human population, but it has been known to cross over busy streets and through people’s wooded backyards. Today, there are many organizations, such as NAWAC and NABS, tv shows, such as Finding Bigfootand Mountain Monsters and even websites from multiple states, which are dedicated to finding and sharing evidence on the historical creature. Those who have claimed to see bigfoot have a strong belief in its existence and wish to spread awareness about the mysterious beast, due to the lack of factual evidence on it. The existence of bigfoot could mean there are other creatures in the world that have yet to be discovered and it could also contribute to the theory of evolution.

Sightings of the sasquatch in North America began as early as the 1830s. Evidence of bigfoot has been found in multiple forms, including video footage, eye witness accounts, foot tracks, voice recordings and body samples, such as hair and blood. Most of the evidence comes from that of eyewitnesses, but because a negative cannot be proven, this type of evidence is not dependable. There have been hundreds of thousands of accounts supporting the existence of bigfoot, but the majority have been proven to be a hoax. For example, human reenactments of bigfoot footage show it is highly possible that a man or woman could have put on a costume to portray themselves as bigfoot, in order to convince people of its existence. People have also been known to walk through wooded areas with handmade shoes to create bigfoot tracks in order to fool bigfoot believers. Of all the evidence, real or fake, one thing is for sure, those who believe in the extraordinary bigfoot will likely never stop.

People who believe in extraordinary things are often mistaken due to confirmation bias. They look for any information that has the potential to support their belief. For example, bigfoot hunters travel to the wilderness where multiple sightings of the beast have occurred. Their hope is to capture evidence for the scientific world to prove that the sasquatch in fact exists. With the mindset that the skeptical beast is real, these people often will hear a simple coyote howl or bear grunt and automatically think it’s the animal they have been searching for. Believers also misinterpret evidence due to practical jokers who disguise themselves as a sasquatch and deceivingly have someone record them while they act with strange mannerisms that do not correspond to that of a human. With the support of others who believe in the wood ape, the believers have a hard time changing their views.

Bigfoot believers, also known as bigfooters, come from all over the world, but they are mainly people who have had personal experiences with the beast, whether that be seeing it for themselves, or hearing accounts of friends or family who witnessed the wood ape. Such people usually dwell close to forests or mountains where civilization is dispersed scarcely throughout. These small knit communities often have town meetings to discuss personal accounts of bigfoot sightings with those whom are interested. These town meetings often contribute to the confirmation bias of those who view the sasquatch as real.

People who believe in this fictitious creature likely sustain their belief due to the phenomena of confirmation bias as well as the support of others who are also firm believers in the extraordinary bigfoot. The belief likely provides a sense of curiosity because other creatures may be out in the world that have yet to be discovered. Although it can be comforting to think that new species are still being discovered, it can also blind one from reality. A majority of sasquatch evidence that has been studied, has been proven to be fraud, and the rest very much has the potential to be a hoax. So, is bigfoot really out there?

Sources:

Benjamin Radford. “Bigfoot: Man-Monster or Myth.” Live Science, 6 Nov. 2012,

https://www.livescience.com/24598-bigfoot.html. Accessed 7 Feb. 2019

Benjamin Radford. “Bigfiit at 50 Evaluating a Half-Century of Bigfoot Evidence.” CSI, Volume 26.2, April 2002,

https://www.csicop.org/SI/show/bigfoot_at_50_evaluating_a_half%20century_of_bigfoot_evidence. Acessed 10 Feb.2019

Tom Harris. “How Bigfoot Works.” How Stuff Works, 2019 https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-

myth/strange-creatures/bigfoot2.htm. Accessed 8 Feb. 2019

By Jeremiah Lozier

In light of the New-Age movement, there has been a resurgence in the belief and popularity of healing crystals. Some people believe that various sorts of crystals have the ability to purge the body of “negative, disease-causing energy” (Palermo, 2017). The use of healing crystals falls under the practice of alternative medicine and is of ancient origins. Modern day crystal healing is primarily based on ancient Asian customs: the manipulation of a life-energy made manifest in the physical body that is of supernatural essence (Palermo, 2017). Despite the absence of scientific evidence, the belief in healing crystals is unequivocally prevalent in modern society.

Healing crystals supposedly have several different characteristics that influence the kind of healing they administer. A crystal’s power is dependent upon the structure, color, and elemental composition (Palermo, 2017). There are innumerous accounts of anecdotal stories of crystals altering one’s energy. In a particular story, a woman clenched two different stones in her fists where one helped bolster courage and the other influenced the “voice chakra” as she approached her boss to negotiate a raise. She managed to secure the raise thanks to the crystals (Marshall, 2018). On the other hand, in terms of healing crystals withstanding the ruthless refinement of science based experimentation, there is no evidence that healing crystals possess the power to influence such energies.

Although there is no scientific evidence that supports healing crystals having the ability to manipulate bodily energies, there is, however, evidence to support a placebo effect in those that use healing crystals. In the case of the woman who asked for a raise, it is very likely that she experienced an increase in confidence due to the mere fact that she was holding rocks that she believed to be influencing her state of mind. I would argue that people are misinformed about the healing properties of crystals, but that is not to say that crystals cannot help some people in some situations. The Placebo effect can be very powerful.

As culture continues to change and evolve, so will the beliefs of those that live in the context of a changing culture. Alternative medicinal practices have been steadily increasing with the birth of the New Age movement. Especially as more and more celebrities and people of influence latch onto and endorse healing crystals, the demand will continue to rise, and therefore, the supply must rise thus sustaining the popularity.

Because healing crystals are of ancient descent, there is an element of stagnation at play: the upholding and reverence of an ancient practice despite modern, contradicting evidence. In addition to stagnation, humanity as a whole yearns for meaning in life. The belief in healing crystals plays into the idea of the human soul that persists after physical death which is a psychological defense mechanism according to Terror Management Theory.

References:

1. Marshall, Lisa. “Can Crystals Heal? Separating Facets from Facts.” WebMD, WebMD, 16 Jan. 2018, www.webmd.com/balance/news/20180116/can-crystals-heal-separating-facets-from-facts.
2. Palermo, Elizabeth. “Crystal Healing: Stone-Cold Facts About Gemstone Treatments.” LiveScience, Purch, 23 June 2017, www.livescience.com/40347-crystal-healing.html.

By Trent Cash

In 1939, the United States government – along with many other developed nations – began including fluoride in the public water supply in an attempt to promote oral health amongst its citizens (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2016). Despite the purported benefits of fluoridation, critics (henceforth referred to as anti-fluoriders) have claimed since the 1950s that the practice is obsolete, dangerous, a violation of individual freedoms, and, in the most extreme cases, a government (or communist) mind-control plot (Ewens, 2016). While beliefs about the negative or null effects of fluoridation have faded since the fall of the Soviet Union, they are now primarily held by individuals who are prone to believing in conspiracy theories – often referred to as “truthers” – but the belief has found a foothold in academic and medical circles, with professionals primarily debating the ethical implications of forced fluoride intake (Ewens, 2016). Additionally, the sentiment is frequently espoused in so-called “Mommy Blogs,” where the primary argument is that fluoride should not be given to children because of its supposed toxicity (Dr. Jill, 2018). Sources discussing the potential implications of fluoride range from large organizations such as the Fluoride Action Network to fringe blog sites, such as “Science Based Life.” Despite these arguments, research has consistently shown that fluoridation has an overwhelmingly positive effect on health, and is even considered one of the top ten greatest public health achievements of the 20^th century (CDC, 2016). As such, the fears surrounding fluoridation should be considered an extreme belief, as validation of the belief would not only shake our foundations of scientific understanding, but also bring into question the credibility of democratic governments around the world. Furthermore, if the extreme belief is unfounded, its propagation could set oral health services back nearly a century and diminish the oral health of millions. As such, eradication of the myth is in the public’s best interest.

When you discount the mind control discussion and the “Hitler used fluoride” point (read more here), the fluoride argument really comes down to two major points: is fluoride safe, and is fluoride necessary? In addressing the first point, anti-fluoriders claim that fluoride is a toxin that has a host of negative effects on your health. While nearly every negative outcome under the sun has been suggested, the most-frequently cited ailment is bone cancer (American Cancer Society [ACS], 2015). The bone cancer argument is frequently supported by an unpublished dissertation from a Harvard graduate student finding that young boys (note: N=11) exposed to fluoride between the ages of 5-10 have an increased risk of osteosarcoma from ages 10-19 due to accumulation of fluoride in growth plates (Woffinden, 2005). Similar results were found in male mice, but no human replication of these studies has been published in a reputable journal (ACS, 2015). In contrast to these reports, the American Cancer Society (ACS; 2015) obviously cannot “prove the negative,” but they claim that the weight of the evidence (i.e. thousands of studies from dozens of countries) does not support the carcinogenicity of fluoride, and that the unpublished Harvard dissertation was impacted by flawed research methods. Additionally, the ACS (2015) notes that concerns regarding osteosarcoma are often inflated due to the extreme rarity of the condition, which receives 400 diagnoses per year in the United States.

As to the matter of the necessity of fluoride, anti-fluoriders often argue that fluoride is unnecessary because it is “unnatural” and “not an essential nutrient” (Fluoride Action Network, 2012). Proponents of fluoridation do not claim that fluoride is “necessary,” but they do defend its myriad of benefits. The CDC (2016) claims that drinking fluoride reduces cavities in children by 25% and saves resources within the public health system. In corroborating this claim, the American Dental Association (ADA; 2019) claims that every $1 spent on fluoridation reduces public dental health spending by $38. Furthermore, the ADA (2019) notes that fluoride is in fact naturally present in groundwater and the ocean (i.e. natural), and that the government is simply increasing it to a recommended level.

There are definitely a variety of cognitive distortions at work in the fluoridation debate. First and foremost, I think that anti-fluoriders are influenced by the causal fallacy, meaning that they don’t understand that correlation does not equal causation. I think this is best evidenced by the fact that many of the blogs, such as one cool blog called “Fluoride – Drinking Ourselves to Death,” take evidence from studies showing relationships between fluoride and negative health outcomes and use the relationships as evidence that fluoride causes the negative health outcomes (Bollinger, 2015). Beyond this, I believe the arguments of anti-fluoriders are influenced by a misunderstanding of statistics – namely the need to replicate and ignorance of base rates. In fact, the ACS (2015) directly states that the anti-fluoride studies are rarely replicated, and that concerns regarding osteosarcoma result from the extreme rarity of the disease (i.e. a low base rate) skewing correlational data. Finally, I think the anti-fluoriders are influenced – as we all are – by the confirmation bias, meaning that they are more likely to search for evidence that confirms their beliefs and interpret ambiguous evidence in a way that supports their beliefs. The “Drinking Ourselves to Death” blog is a perfect example of this, as the author ONLY mentions evidence that supports his claim (Bollinger, 2015).

In terms of social context, I think there are a few major factors at work. First and foremost, the whole anti-fluoride movement is underwritten by a notion of freedom from government intervention, a political ideology (Ewens, 2016). Basically, many of the anti-fluoriders think – at minimum – that individuals should be able to choose whether they want fluoride or not, a relatively reasonable request. However, like many ideologies, the anti-fluoriders come together and their beliefs become more extreme, likely as a result of common social psychological phenomena, such as groupthink and group polarization. This deepening of beliefs can lead to some of the more outrageous beliefs (e.g. government mind control) that line up with what I would call radical libertarianism. Aside from the tendency of social networks to create more-extreme beliefs, they also provide benefits to the members in the forms of entertainment value and sense of belonging. To me, this is a particularly important element of continued adherence to the anti-fluoride movement because adherents seem to be primarily middle-income, white, not college educated, and young to middle age – all of which are groups that tend to have a decent amount of free time, some disposable income, and a grave need for social connection. So, even if these people aren’t really that interested in the anti-fluoride movement, being a part of the group makes them feel good, so they will begin to adjust their beliefs to make the group like them more. In my opinion, this is what makes any conspiracy theory particularly enticing to the human psyche.

All things considered, I think the most important thing to realize about the anti-fluoride movement is that, like anything, it comes in many forms. While it’s fun to laugh at the people who think it’s a form of government mind control, there’s an equally large (or larger) number of people who just want to feel that they get to make the choice themselves. This need for decisional control lines up with self-determination research showing that having control over one’s life is a critical aspect of maintaining a healthy self-esteem and overall psychological well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Like believers of any extraordinary belief, anti-fluoriders are simply trying to make sense of the crazy world around them and find their niche in society. While the overwhelming majority of science may not support their beliefs, psychology is perfectly clear on why they would embrace their beliefs: it makes them feel good. While we may not know the exact mechanism for each individual’s extraordinary belief, all of the believers are doing what they feel will make them best off – even if this means distorting facts through a variety of biases (e.g. confirmation bias, omission bias) or crafting fallacy-laden arguments. When it comes down to it, I firmly believe that the anti-fluoriders are incorrect at best and potentially-harmful at worst – but ultimately, I don’t think most of them are any crazier than the rest of us. I mean, haven’t you ever done something that others would call stupid just to fit in, have friends, feel good, or be happy?

References

American Cancer Society. (2015, July 28). Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk. Retrieved February 6, 2019, from https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk.html

American Dental Association. (2019). 5 Reasons Why Fluoride in Water is Good for Communities. Retrieved February 6, 2019, from https://www.ada.org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation/5-reasons-why-fluoride-in-water-is-good-for-communities

Bollinger, T. (2015, April 22). Fluoride – Drinking Ourselves to Death? Retrieved February 6, 2019, from https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/fluoride-drinking-ourselves-to-death/

Centers for Disease Control. (2016, October 4). Community Water Fluoridation. Retrieved February 6, 2019, from https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/index.html

Dr. Jill. (2018). Why You Should REFUSE Fluoride Treatments for Your Child [Web log post]. Retrieved February 6, 2019, from https://realfoodforager.com/why-you-should-refuse-fluoride-treatments-for-your-child/

Ewens, H. (2016, August 12). A Deep Dive Into the Conspiracy Theory That Governments Are Controlling Us with Fluoride. Vice Magazine. Retrieved February 6, 2019, from https://www.vice.com/sv/article/kwz5m3/why-are-governments-putting-fluoride-in-our-water-sheeple

Fluoride Action Network. (2012, August). FLUORIDE IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL NUTRIENT. Retrieved February 6, 2019, from http://fluoridealert.org/studies/essential-nutrient/

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68

Woffinden, B. (2005, June 12). Fluoride water ’causes cancer’. Retrieved February 6, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/jun/12/medicineandhealth.genderissues