The belief that I am investigating is that aliens could be the AI (artificial intelligence) that we know today. Along with this belief comes the Fermi Paradox, named after the physicist Enrico Fermi. This Paradox poses the argument about the lack of evidence and high probability of extraterrestrial beings and civilizations. Based on the articles I have read, mainly astronomers are those who believe in this theory because they have not seen evidence from space that aliens are out there. I have found information on this theory on various websites, including that of SETI, BBC, and the Fermi Paradox website. This theory is still popular today, especially as we advance technologically with more AI devices coming out constantly. This belief that aliens were the start and continuation of AI technology is extraordinary because it seems impossible, we have knowledge of the scientists and engineers who have, and continue, to work on AI. Believers of this theory are claiming that the aliens came to our planet and created this technology, using their advanced knowledge, and then moved on to help other planets and populations do the same. When they moved on they left behind their AI technology so they could monitor us from a distance and later communicate with us if need be. They also state that it is possible if they were to try and communicate with earth, they may be so evolved that we would not be able to understand or detect their messages.

On one end of the spectrum, critics often say, if our galaxy is really over 10 billion years old, there must have been plenty of chances for another species to branch out into the world and settle down on another livable planet. If this is so, where are they and why haven’t we come into contact with them? At the other end of it all it is stated that we haven’t been able to detect alien intelligence because our first contact with them will be in the form of technology and not organic creatures. “Intelligences might be like small ships passing in the night in a vast ocean” it is stated on aeon.com. This AI technology that the aliens have developed is so far beyond our abilities to understand that until we are “ready” we won’t be able to come in contact with them.

Cognitively, I think this belief goes along with the idea that people don’t like the unknown. It brings us cognitive dissonance to not know the explanation behind something, like lights in the sky or why space is so vast, but we are the only species active throughout it. In terms of the belief that aliens are just AI I think it’s possible that this idea is comforting to people who don’t understand how or why technology had become so advanced to the point that it is essentially self-sufficient. The believers of this theory seem to come from more scientific backgrounds, but at the same time others who have similar scientific backgrounds will completely dispute these ideas. Those scientists who do share these beliefs have created communities and websites in which they can all share their ideas; this comradery allows their ideas to be supported and pushed even further. Confirmation bias could be to blame for some of these sustained beliefs, if someone has some beliefs that aliens exist and then they are presented with ambiguous evidence, they are more likely to see this as evidence to go along with what they believe. Along with this, even if they are presented with data that could prove that aliens do not exist, they aren’t likely to listen or remember this.

Overall, this belief in aliens as AI started in response to Fermi’s Paradox stating that the lack of evidence that aliens were real meant they could not be anywhere in our universe. From there they have perpetuated the belief through pseudoscience and lack of evidence to keep coming up with more and more hypotheses for why they do exist, but we haven’t seen them or communicated with them.

In the body of Great Britain’s largest freshwater lake, there persists the belief of a prehistoric monster outliving its counterparts. For 1500 years the mystery of Nessie, the Loch Ness monster, has endured in popularity both in its Scotland home and around the globe. Nessie is believed to reside in the Loch Ness Lake of the Scottish Highlands, remaining allusive over its 23 miles and 788 ft depth. The residents of the surrounding village, Inverness, can be credited with maintaining the legends desirability, most prominently through tourism efforts, insisting that there is still no evidence for the non-existence of the creature, thus come see for yourself.

The persistence of the legend rests on its longevity and contributes to its extraordinary attributes. If Nessie exists, it would counter the idea that prehistoric creatures have been extinct and prove they could survive in a modern environment, therefore, contradicting currently accepted scientific theories. Nevertheless, evidence supporting Nessie’s existence has been frequent and heavy since the legends origins. The earliest documentation can be traced as early as 297 AD in paintings by the Pict, an ancient people who lived in now modern eastern Scotland. The Pict people had an appreciation and fascination of animals, documenting them in great detail. Upon discovery their depictions were easily recognizable except for one, a creature with flippers, a round body, and an elongated neck, was unlike anything familiar in the region. These paintings would be the foundation for an evolving legend, appearing again two hundred years later in 565 AD in the biography of St. Columbia. His writing spoke of a monster in the Loch, of a creature beginning to attack a swimmer, but before it could attack again Columbia told it to return and it obeyed. In the centuries following these two tales paved the way of the legend, vague sightings of a mysterious sea creature would show pattern, enough for the belief to pass several generations. The belief would begin to attract global attention most notably in the 1930s. In July of 1933 the Caledonian Canal was being built across the Loch to accommodate traffic, on the 22nd of the month passersby George Spicer and his wife claimed to have seen “a most extraordinary form of animal” cross the street in front of their car, the description resembling that of the Pict. After multiple similar claims in the area it was decided that the construction of the bridge allowed a once isolated area to be explored, thus an increase in sightings. In the same year the first photo of Nessie arose, Hugh Grey had been walking with his dog when the picture was taken, showing an indistinguishable, blurry creature. In 1934 Nessie was told to have came ashore again, motorcyclist Arthur Grant was riding at 1am when he claims to have hit a large, round, flippered creature that retreated to the water post impact. However the greatest contribution to the legends attention occurred also in 1934, the “Surgeon’s Photograph,” taken by Robert Kenneth Wilson would show the head and neck of an unidentifiable animal among waves. The photograph would grab global attention through newspapers and radio broadcasts, bringing about eager tourists. The exponential popularity of this decade leveled out for the remainder of the 20th century, however, sonar readings, expeditions, films and photos would become frequent activities across the lake by those near and far, all contributing to over 4,000 documented accounts of claimed sightings.

Interest and research of the legend has persisted throughout the 21st century, however we are now able to dismiss some of the evidence that first sparked its infamousy in the 1930s. For example, Hugh Grey’s 1934 photograph was determined to be inadequate evidence as two positive-negative slides confirmed the shape was that of a rolling otter. Similarly, Arthur Grants motorcycle incident was decided to have been the result of another otter, whose size and features grew with time and exaggeration in

accordance with scheme of the legend. Finally, the most dramatic reversal of evidence came with Robert Wilson’s photograph being deduced to an elaborate hoax. The famous photo had been manipulated in size, the materials that of craftsmanship, and the floating movements responsible by submarine. It was a production involving Marmaduke Wetherell, an employee of the Daily Mail who wanted revenge after a previous submittal of evidence was quickly ruled to be fake. Co-conspirators Christian Spurling, Ian  Wetherell, and Maurice Chambers built, tested, and deployed the device for photography purposes, would remaining silent on its public effects until 1994.

Despite the surfacing falsehoods, the belief remains present to modern day. Its popularity hit a peak in the 1930s, but there are still believers who have taken a modern approach to tackling remaining unanswered questions. Rather than rely on testimonial answers, those persistent enough are using technology to acquire answers. For example, professor and scientist Neil Gemmell of New Zealand is conducting The Loch Ness Project, a search for DNA evidence of the present marine life. He says, “there’s absolutely no doubt that we will find new stuff, and that’s very exciting. While the prospect of looking for evidence of the Loch Ness monster is the hook to this project, there is an extraordinary amount of new knowledge that we will gain from the work about organisms that inhabit Loch Ness.” It is hopeful that the expedition will provide insight into the Lake’s biodiversity, perhaps contributing to the legends persistence or dismissal. Nevertheless, the additive lure of this potential is what invites the psychologist’s perspective. There is a wide scope of cognitive contributions that have attributed to the beliefs diligence. One method of such is post-hoc theorizing, meaning that claimed witnesses may not have understood what they had believed to seen, however, when it is suggested that it was the Loch Ness Monster, the witness asserts that they knew it had been so all along. Retreat to this explanation stems from the availability error as well, meaning the spike in sightings in the 1930s can likely be attributed to others believing they have seen something due to the bombardment of information on the matter, thus dismissing any other explanations. Along with this, a majority of the evidence presented can be argued as resembling pseudoscience, or a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific. The characteristics that suggest this are reliance on personal experiences, promising the impossible, and stagnation. Overturned testimonies, the contrast to prehistoric theories, and an unwavering virtue to Scottish folklore has allowed the belief to persist beyond what true scientific methodologies would suggest. It can be argued that the element of stagnation is what maintains the legends presence, having been interwoven into the Scottish culture for 1500 years suggesting a lack of proof is not enough to decay the belief, rather the modest evidence in its favor is framed extraordinarily, allowing it to persist.

The emphasis on tradition contributes to the societal perspective of the belief. Because it is asserted to be a Scottish legend, sharing in it is not limited to class, gender, or race. Rather, it is shared by the Scottish people as a unique statement of their history. This curiosity has been shared with the globe as well, perhaps making a world-wide statement of falsehood unachievable. Nevertheless, the reversal of evidence has not slowed down believers, and tourism for the purpose remains abundant. 

It is difficult to say if this scale of a pseudoscientific belief holds consequences. There is something about a tale of folklore that is appealing to humans whether they are passively or directly invested in something like the Loch Ness Monster. Additionally, those who participate in anything related to the existence of the Loch Ness Monster do not seem to be inflicting any sort of harm on anyone/anything. Whether the belief comes from an investment in one’s Scottish heritage or anecdotal experience, the prospect of an elusive sea monster can almost serve as a form of escapism, a non-consequential rabbit hole to fall down. Although the advent of pseudoscience shouldn’t be encouraged, the longevity of Nessie and her influence on Scottish culture has not resulted in any detrimental scientific malpractice thus far. Therefore, it is safe to assume that people will continue to venture to Nessie’s homestead for years to come.

The ancient alien architect theory is one that has held a lot of the publics’ attention through the years. The general idea is that years ago, aliens visited our planet and assisted our ancestors in building the great monuments of their time. The Egyptian pyramids, Mayan Temples, Angkor Wat, and Easter Island are a few examples that this theory ties in to. This theory is popular among many people, and not exclusive to those who are ill-informed or uneducated. Rather, it is widely held by “average” individuals seeking explanation or understanding of an uncertain and curious past (Killgrove, 2015).

The popularity of the ancient alien architect theory has grown to great prevalence. This popularity must be mostly attributed to the televised phenomena of shows such as History Channel’s “Ancient Aliens”. Other sources of information on the topic are found on websites such as “theancientalien.com”, and pseudo-archaeology books like Graham Hancock’s Fingerprints of the Gods’, and Andrew Collins’ Gobekli Tepe; Genesis of the Gods (Killgrove, 2015). No matter the popularity of the theory, it is indeed extraordinary. The belief in the ancient alien architect theory defies all bounds of modern scientific knowledge; rejecting the traditionally accepted requirements for a legitimate scientific theory. There is no physical or historical proof that provides definitive evidence to support the theory, and yet it holds. No matter your personal opinion on the theory, it is undeniably rampant, controversial, and extraordinary.

For those who hold stock in the ancient alien architect theory, explanations abound. For example, at the time at which so many of the ancient monuments in question were built, our perception of the “necessary” technology was not yet invented. This begs the question, as to how our ancestors managed such a feat. Additionally, many of the monuments (Egyptian Pyramids, Easter Island Heads, etc.), have curiously precise alignment with the stars and patterns of the sun. Without telescopes or geometric equipment, this type of precision seems highly unlikely for humans to muster on their own (Jones, 2016). Interpretations of cave etchings and hieroglyphics seem to reveal images of helicopter-type vehicles and structures reminiscent of a flying saucer. Had our ancestors not been visited by ancient alien architects, how and why would these images appear (Jones, 2016)? Lastly, there is undeniable similarity between structures that were built hundred and thousands of years and miles apart (Mayan Temples and Egyptian pyramids) (Jones, 2016). Without ever having seen these other locations, how did our ancestors duplicate them? To those who accept the ancient alien architect theory, it seems that the only logical explanation to these mysteries was the visitation of higher-intelligence race of aliens.

On the other hand, there are many who reject the idea of the ancient alien architect theory. From a technological standpoint, it is true that scientists are still working on figuring out how exactly our ancestors managed such large architectural feats. However, modern discoveries and research has uncovered explanations and theories based in legitimate scientific processes. For example, a recent study based out of Egypt lead to the discovery that water can be utilized to make the transportation of heavy blocks easier (Jarus, 2016). This sheds light of the question as to how our ancestors managed to move such heavy objects without modern day technology. Circumpolar stars, such as Polaris, and lines of rope could have been utilized as a method of aligning the buildings so precisely with star patterns (Jarus, 2016). While scientists and archaeologists acknowledge that these actions would have been difficult, they would not have been impossible. Documents and building plans have been found in places such as Egypt as well, describing the large work forces utilized in these projects (Jarus, 2016).  For those who reject the theory, they see no actual evidence of its claims. They seek proof in traditional and logical scientific process.

Those who believe the ancient alien architect theory are not alone. Believers come from every walk of life, every age, and every socioeconomic status. There is a social fascination with the topic, and it is widely popular across many platforms. Social media, television shows, blogs, and even support groups devoted to the theory allow believers to hold strong. The prevalence of the show “Ancient Aliens” undoubtedly attracts many to this theory. Movies like “The Day after Tomorrow” and “Independence Day”, while not focused primarily on alien architects, promote fascination with alien conceptualization. All of these platforms make it hard to ignore the topic, and allow believers more and more outlets to solidify their convictions.

When considering the psychological explanations that may account for belief in such a theory, a few come to mind. Ad Ignorantum refers to the idea that something must be true, if it is not proven false. This is key in the mind of a believer. Instead of saying “let me show you proof”, they instead say “show me proof this isn’t true”. Hasty generalization is key as well. Jumping to a conclusion based of insufficient evidence is found is nearly every claim within the ancient alien architect theory. This ties in with the slippery-slope idea as well. A small idea is conjured, and instead of analyzing or trying to disprove it, the idea snowballs into an entire theory. For example, when considering the issue of how the pyramids were built, some argue that hieroglyphics found on site resemble helicopters (Jones, 2016). A believer assumes this to mean that a helicopter-type vehicle was present, and since humans did not have that kind of technology, they then assume that an extraterrestrial visitor must have brought it. And so, if they were present, they must have been helping with the construction of the seemingly impossible pyramid construction. Instead of accepting alternate explanations, a generalized theory is created, and seemingly explains the mystery.

These psychological explanations account for why so many fall into this belief pattern. It seems nearly impossible to reject an idea when everything seemingly “fits”. The characteristics of pseudoscience are tricky, and can make almost any issue believable. Humans seek explanation, and the comfort of understanding. When tackling an issue such as these ancient marvels, it is natural to search for any explanation, because it defies what we see as possible. This is where the ancient alien architect theory gains so much attention, and how it continues to spread.

Killgrove, Kristina. “What Archaeologists Really Think About Ancient Aliens, Lost Colonies, And Fingerprints Of The Gods.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 22 Nov. 2015, www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2015/09/03/what-archaeologists-really-think-about-ancient-aliens-lost-colonies-and-fingerprints-of-the-gods/.

Jones, Kim. “Top 10 Evidences To Prove The Aliens Built The Pyramids” Proof of Aliens Life, 25 Feb. 2016, https://proofofalien.com/top-10-evidences-to-prove-the-aliens-built-the-pyramids/.

Jarus, Owen. “How Were the Egyptian Pyramids Built?” LiveScience, LiveScience Online, 14 Jun, 2016.  https://www.livescience.com/32616-how-were-the-egyptian-pyramids-built-.html .

In a day and age where a wealth of scientific knowledge is constantly at our fingertips, one would think that extraordinary beliefs would have been on the decline long ago. However, in recent years more and more individuals have succumbed to these kinds of beliefs. Of all these that have risen in prevalence in the last few years, none stands out more than Flat Earth theory. According to livescience.com, Flat Earth theory is the belief that the Earth, rather than being a sphere, is actually a round, flat disc. The Arctic Circle lies at the center of this disk, and Antarctica is actually a 150-foot wall of ice that surrounds the outer edge. The sun and the moon are, in essence, celestial spotlights that rotate around the Earth, along with an invisible “antimoon” that accounts for lunar eclipses. Flat Earth theory also states that gravity is actually an illusion, and the reason why objects fall is because the Earth is being driven upward by so-called “dark energy” at a rate of 32 feet per second squared. Finally, those who believe in Flat Earth theory also believe that the idea of a round Earth is a conspiracy generated by NASA for some unknown purpose. Sounds like something that would be hard to believe, right? Except that this belief, while still only found in a small minority of people, is actually quite popular. According to People magazine, prominent celebrities such as rapper B.o.B. and NBA player Kyrie Irving are incredibly verbal about their belief in Flat Earth theory, with B.o.B. even going so far as to get into an argument with physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson over it on Twitter. Clearly, Flat Earth theory has taken the world by storm; but what does science have to say about this?

Proponents of Flat Earth theory have presented numerous pieces of “evidence” to explain why their theory is correct over the years. In a YouTube video posted by ODD Reality, they attempt to provide as much evidence for Flat Earth theory as possible, stating “facts” like “water always fills to a level surface” and “science disproving Flat Earth theory just uses workarounds, which isn’t real science”, when all of these are not actually facts at all. The facts that disprove Flat Earth theory, however, are both accurate and bountiful. In an article from popsci.com, they list ten different things that prove the Earth is round. One such fact is that you can’t see certain constellations from different parts of the world, (a fact that was discovered by Aristotle thousands of years ago), which would only be possible if the earth was round. The fact that the higher up you go, the further you can see, also disproves Flat Earth theory. Finally, and arguably most obviously, the fact that we have different time zones would only be possible if the Earth was round, meaning that the Earth being flat is completely impossible. Unlike the evidence that “proves” Flat Earth theory, the evidence that proves the Earth is round is specific, scientifically-backed, and in most cases incredibly obvious.

Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that discredits Flat Earth theory, many people not only still adhere to this belief but will vehemently defend it as well. It is therefore important to ask the question: where did this belief start, and why has it not only remained prevalent but in fact grown in popularity? From a cognitive point of view, we can find several explanations for this phenomena. According to phys.org, the belief in a Flat Earth was held up until around the 3^rd century BC, when it was first postulated that the Earth might be round. Mankind did not have a full grasp on scientific knowledge at this point, and as such they maintained a more egocentric of the world in which they lived. Many would watch their family and friends sail away on boats and disappear over the horizon, only to never return. The only explanation that they could come up with was that the Earth was flat, and these ships had simply fallen off the edge. By the 15^th century, this belief largely fell to the wayside as the belief in a round Earth became more widely accepted, but there were those who held onto the old ways due to a psychological concept known as cognitive dissonance. This is a tension that one experiences when they are presented with evidence that contradicts with a previously held belief. Rather than dealing with it, many will ignore it and choose to ignore this new evidence. Others will come up with reasons why they are right after the fact, a process known as post-hoc theorizing. But these cognitive reasons can’t be the only explanation. Other forces must be at work.

The other force is the social aspect. We live in a day and age where everyone is connected through the internet, meaning more and more people have a shared space to spread their beliefs to other like-minded individuals. Not only that, but they are often able to get away with having no factual evidence to back up their beliefs, so long as their conviction is strong enough. According to phys.org, many individuals have begun to actively distrust expert opinion, choosing instead to trust the opinions of prominent figures in mainstream media, regardless of their credentials. This is because these people are often able to craft more interesting ways of telling their opinions than experts, who are restricted by the guidelines of scientific publishing. In an article on livescience.com, they call this phenomena the minority effect: the tendency to believe a minority opinion when the advocates of that opinion stay true to their beliefs. These social forces are powerful ones, and they all contribute to the longevity of this particular belief.

Flat Earth theory is an extraordinary belief that, through psychological forces, has stood this test of time and permeated itself into modern society. Despite the overwhelming evidence disproving the theory, there are many who still hold steadfast to their belief that the earth is flat. This comes from many factors, such as: an effort to reduce cognitive dissonance, the rising trend of distrusting expert opinion, and the minority effect. These things, combined with the age of internet and social media, create a climate that is ripe for a belief like this to take hold. By recognizing these causes, hopefully we can prevent the effects by bettering our education system, and give people the tools they need to evaluate information before they choose to believe it.

Works Cited

Natalie Wolchover and Live Science Staff. (2017, May 30). Are Flat-Earthers Being Serious? Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html

Reality, O. (2016, August 29). Flat Earth in 5 Minutes ▶️️. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDKc6X8TXNE

Smarterthanthat. (2016, January 26). 10 easy ways you can tell for yourself that the Earth is not flat. Retrieved from https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round#page-6

The Short List of Famous People Who Think the Earth Is Flat (Yes, Really). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://people.com/celebrity/flat-earth-celebrities-world-not-round/

Why do some people believe the Earth is flat? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://phys.org/news/2019-01-people-earth-flat.html

What would you do if someone told you the end was near? Apocalyptic cults have continually attempted to answer this question. Charles Manson became an infamous figure in American history after his loyal band of followers, deemed the Manson Family, carried out a series of gruesome murders in the summer of 1969. The gang massacred some of Hollywood’s most famous, including actress, Sharon Tate. Manson’s cult centered around the belief that he was the chosen Messiah that would lead his followers into surviving an impending nuclear attack and race war. However, they were also tasked with initiating this race war[i]. In 1978, the world was shocked to learn of the mass murder-suicide that took the lives of more than 900 individuals. Under the guidance of the charismatic Reverend Jim Jones, the Peoples Temple murdered a Congressman, journalists, and intentionally drank cyanide-laced juice. The extraordinary phenomenon of Doomsday cults repeatedly catches the public’s attention, as many wonder what could convince normal people to commit such gruesome acts.

Doomsday cults typically center around predictions of the apocalypse. What many of these groups also have in common is a leader who suggests his own messianic destiny. Several individuals have come forth throughout history holding these extraordinary beliefs and a select few garnering the enough attention to capture a crowd. Often, those who manage to attract a vast following do not actively recruit members or attempt to convince nonbelievers, rather they wait for the “chosen ones” to fall in line.[ii]Other times, leaders may utilize popular rhetoric, such as religion, spirituality or social justice, to attract their following.[iii]Another crucial component is a leader who possesses such charm and allure to captivate an audience and convince his followers to carry out their actions. Other hidden tools of recruiting include propaganda which aims at alienated or vulnerable individuals who may be highly susceptible to outside messages.[iv]Once trust is slowly gained, these followers become deeply entrenched in the message of their organization.

To many, the idea of an individual who can predict the end of the world seems completely outside the boundaries of logic and reasoning. Our society is based on the notion that without scientific evidence, novel claims cannot be held to be true. Hence, when apocalyptic cults lack concrete proof for their predictions of the end times, they are dubbed implausible. However, for the many people who come to join Doomsday cults, their leaders are exactly what they preach to be. Consider, for example, what may be considered the largest cult to persist in history: Christians. Christianity is the largest religious following in the world and has been for centuries. Millions of people read the Bible, attend mass and pray devotedly in honor of a Messiah who led others to salvation. In the minds of cult followers, their group is no less legitimate than Jesus and his disciples.

The cognitive contributions to Doomsday cult members maintaining their belief has been studied by many psychologists. One of the most popular studies was completed by Leon Festinger[v]. Through his observation of the Doomsday cult, The Seekers, he displayed that these groups are not just misinterpreting evidence, but changing the way they process information to configure to their beliefs. In a practice termed “cognitive dissonance,” Festinger noted the unpleasant state of tension when actions, thoughts, or beliefs are inconsistent. This discomfort then motivates individuals to either change their behavior or beliefs to return to a harmonious state. Festinger further identified certain conditions under which followers will not only maintain, but strengthen, their beliefs after they are disproven.

The notion behind Doomsday cults is not an outdated concept. The same recruiting and manipulation techniques have been related to those used by terrorist organizations today, such as ISIS. By utilizing the same religious rhetoric and appealing to susceptible populations, terrorist groups have convinced individuals to engage in violence and suicidal behavior. Social conditions also play a factor in the enhanced attraction of such manipulative groups. Typically, when individuals feel isolated from the community and long for something to believe in, they are more easily persuaded to join groups which instill a sense of belonging and a newfound purpose in life.[vi]

The irrational beliefs of Doomsday cults are perceived as rational in the mind of those who participate in them. Captivating leaders tout a messianic message to prophesize the end of the world and their grandiose role in its conclusion. Members are recruited from a pool that suits the mission of the leader by various techniques. By utilizing the examples already present in our society, such as religious organization, members are able to justify their involvement in a group endorsing ideas unverified by scientific evidence. Cognitive properties, such as cognitive dissonance, are also at work to increase the convictions of group members despite conflicting information. Further, apocalyptic cults may not be a passing trend, but are re-envisioned in terrorist organizations and other groups that prey on others to accomplish an evil mission. Despite our desire to believe that humans are rational and skeptical beings, history tells us there will always be somebody claiming to know when the end is nigh, and he is likely not alone.

[i]Charles Manson. (2019, January 09). Retrieved February 8, 2019, from https://www.biography.com/people/charles-manson-9397912

[ii]Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1967). When prophecy fails: A social and psychological study of a modern group that predicted the destruction of the world. By Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter. New York: Harper & Row.

[iii]Conroy, J. O. (2018, November 17). An apocalyptic cult, 900 dead: Remembering the Jonestown massacre, 40 years on. Retrieved February 8, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/17/an-apocalyptic-cult-900-dead-remembering-the-jonestown-massacre-40-years-on

[iv]Haberman, C. (2017, November 05). What Doomsday Cults Can Teach Us About ISIS Today. Retrieved February 11, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/us/retro-cults-isis.html

[v]Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1967). When prophecy fails: A social and psychological study of a modern group that predicted the destruction of the world. By Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter. New York: Harper & Row.

[vi]Haberman, C. (2017, November 05). What Doomsday Cults Can Teach Us About ISIS Today. Retrieved February 11, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/us/retro-cults-isis.html

Dianetics is a set of ideas about the human mind and human behavior originating from science-fiction author Lafayette Ron Hubbard. The basic idea behind dianetics involves the mind being split into three parts. The analytical mind is fairly straightforward as it navigates us through the world with rational decision making. The reactive mind, however, hold memories in the form of images during unconsciousness. The somatic mind takes all the input from the other two parts in order to direct action in the physical world. Within the reactive mind, a sting of painful experiences called an engram can start to affect behavior. In order to rid the mind of these engrams to alleviate negative experiences in the real world, one must go through “auditing” which is when a “therapist” interviews a subject in order to isolate and confront these painful experiences. After various tests and sessions, the subject can be declared “clear” which will greatly improve their life in the physical world. Dianetics was first popular in around 1949-1950 when Hubbard published the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. However, at this time, Hubbard was trying to portray his ideas as science. However, Hubbard was forced to abandon the name “Dianetics” due to bankruptcy, so he modified the ideas slightly with a different name: Scientology. While these ideas are not scientifically correct since the mind is much more complicated than that, the mixing of science with these extraordinary beliefs allows Scientology to be practiced by thousands including actor Tom Cruise and musician Beck. Scientology can also be attractive to certain people because it portrays itself as a way to rid negativity.

One of the ways Hubbard would support his theories was by running experiments done by the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation. Hundreds of trained auditors would use their taught techniques on subjects whose physical and mental health would be compared before and after auditing. Unfortunately, experiments set up in this fashion are ripe conditions for vast amounts of confirmation bias. The “trained professionals” would only look for what they wanted to see. They would only report positive results. Also, the way Dianetics’ science is reported, it is almost impossible to replicate to get the positive results because the experimenter basically has to be a part of that society. This is the very reason Hubbard restructured Dianetics from being scientific to a more philosophical idea because it could not be proven scientifically. Another piece of evidence the Scientology community points to is the e-meter. The e-meter reads a person’s electrodermal activity (EDA). This is the machine used while auditing. One of the first critiques of this device is that it was invented by a man inspired by Hubbard and worked with Hubbard. Basically it was built purely just to have some sort of evidence for Hubbard’s theories.

One of the ways Scientology will keep their believers in their web is by playing on cognitive dissonance. It is much harder to pull someone away from their established beliefs if they’ve invested time or money in that belief system. Scientology’s first step involves purchasing a lot of their materials. Not only does that provide one side of the scientific debate since it does not provide the critiques of the scientific basis of their beliefs, it also makes the person put their money and time towards this belief. Another way they keep their believers in their circle is by the availability heuristic. They will only look at the positive results, that being someone’s life improving due to the practices of this belief, rather than the many times they do not work. If one were to bring up the negative results, it is always easy to respond with a claim that cannot be tested. They could always say there are more engrams within that negative result, and that they only need to go further into the belief system before the improvement can be seen. Of course this whole time confounding variables are not being considered as alternative explanations.

Just as important as the factors that keep someone within the belief system, the type of community that believe Dianetics is crucial to how they get started. Essentially, Dianetics allows Scientology to operate as self-help tactics. They state all the negativity in your life can disappear if the engrams are eliminated. Naturally then, many of the people that turn to Scientology are desperate to alleviate some serious negativity in their lives. This, first, sets the seeds of cognitive dissonance keeping them within the belief system. It also allows grassroots spreading to happen more easily. If someone who had their problems “cured” by Scientology (when in reality it may have been other forces), they may become devout and look to spread these methods to other desperate people. Those people may not have enough information to contradict the claims being made towards them and only sees the positive result in front of them. Due to the nature of the community in which Scientology reaches out, it allows the beliefs to be more easily maintained and spread. Also, many of the members of Scientology are probably surrounded by mostly other believers in Scientology. If this is the case, it does not allow for other competing or contradictory points to be made. Instead, the beliefs continually get reinforced by others who only affirm rather than challenge.

Scientology was created by a man who’s entire life was to envision and create compelling stories. In this case, he created compelling ideas which he presented under the facade of being scientific fact. People who are desperately trying to improve their lives are essentially preyed upon using people’s instinctive biases and heuristics in order to reel them in and keep them there. Since the claims cannot be definitively tested in a scientific way, there’s a great deal of uncertainty. Human beings inherently do not do well with uncertainty. The ones who already subscribe to that belief system that does produce uncertainty may come up with excuses to reduce the cognitive dissonance. The excuses may be seeing patterns in results from auditing, looking to only positive results, or referring back to faulty science such as engrams. They will use their own ideas in order to explain why non-believers act the way they do. It essentially allows a denial structure that is impenetrable by outside sources and can only crumble from disbelief within.

Sources:

Dianetic Processing: a Brief Survey of Research Projects and Preliminary Results, Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation, 1951, accessed: 10 Feb 2019.

Kent, Stephen. “The Creation of ‘Reliogious’ Scientology,” Universities of Alberta, 1992, accessed: 10 Feb 2019

Miller, Russell. “Bankrolling and Bankruptcy,” Bare-Faced Messiah, The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard. 1987. New York: Henry Holt & Co. pp. 305–306

“What is Dianetics?” scientology.org. accessed: 10 Feb 2019 (many of the other frequently asked questions about Dianetics on their official information on their perspective on Dianetics

By Trent Cash

Among members of the theatre community, there is a long-standing superstition that uttering the name “Macbeth” within the confines of a theater will curse both you and the entire production that is currently being performed (Sherman, 2015). But fear not, the curse can be reversed by walking out of the theater, spinning around three times, cursing, and spitting (French, 2016). This curse, often referred to as the Scottish Play Curse, originated in early 17^th century England, though the exact date is unknown (Royal Shakespeare Company [RSC], 2019). What is known, however, is that the belief came into existence because Shakespeare’s contemporaries in the 17^th century, including King John I of England, believed in the existence of witches, and feared that the witches who chant “Double, Double, Toil and Trouble” at the beginning of Macbeth were real witches attempting to curse the show for eternity (RSC, 2019). While genuine adherence to this belief has faded as the witch’s place in popular culture has diminished, many actors across the western hemisphere still refuse to say the name “Macbeth” in theaters – though the purpose of this superstition has transitioned from genuine fear to little more than tradition (RSC, 2019). While the Scottish Play Curse is no longer genuinely believed in the way it once was, many similar superstitions still exist today. As such, understanding the mechanisms behind these kinds of beliefs is important to developing knowledge of where superstitions come from, how they are propagated, and how they can impact the day-to-day behaviors of individuals from all walks of life. Furthermore, the Scottish Play Curse is clearly an extraordinary belief because science tells us that witchcraft is most definitely not real, so a curse of this sort – which, importantly, has no viable mechanism for occurrence – would truly undermine our understanding of many fields of science. Despite its status as an extraordinary belief, the Scottish Play Curse is so ingrained in theatrical culture that resources explaining its history and sharing stories about its manifestations are plentiful, with sources ranging from actors’ experiences and dramaturgical histories to podcasts and YouTube videos.

When it comes down to evidence for the Scottish Play Curse, pretty much every argument in favor of the curse’s existence is anecdotal or coincidental – a trend that has been true since the curse’s inception. The notion of the Scottish Play Curse began around 1606, when the first production of Macbeth was plagued by a series of accidents, including the death of the actor (not actress) playing Lady Macbeth (RSC, 2019). Critics, however, are quick to point out that we don’t even know when Macbeth was first performed, as record-keeping wasn’t exactly stellar back then. In fact, the first record we have of Macbeth being performed comes from the journal of astrologer Simon Forman, who notes that he saw it in 1611 (Sherman, 2015). While the death of the actor playing Lady Macbeth in the original production cannot be confirmed, many confirmed tragedies associated with productions of Macbeth have occurred since, keeping belief in the curse alive.

One of the most-frequently cited examples of the Scottish Play Curse is 1849’s Astor Place Riot, a New York City riot instigated by a competition between two Shakespearean actors, Edwin Forrest and William Macready, who, at the time of the riot that killed between 22 and 31 people, were both performing – you guessed it – Macbeth (Apmann, 2016). Following the Astor Place Riot, the next mainstream example of tragedy associated with Macbeth occurred in 1937 when superstar actor Laurence Olivier was almost crushed by a stage weight while playing the titular character (The Shakespeare Company, 2017). In the same vein as these historical examples of tragedies associated with Macbeth, many accounts of the Scottish Play Curse have crossed into the media as recently as last year (Faires, 2018). With stories that include actor suicides, characters sleep-walking of stage, stage daggers being replaced with real daggers, and so much more, who could resist the allure of the Scottish Play Curse (RSC, 2019)? Well, apparently the skeptics can, because there are plenty of theatre-community folks who are quick to debunk the Scottish Play Curse. While the primary argument made by skeptics is that witchcraft isn’t real, but rather a manmade notion used to explain the unexplainable (Sherman, 2015), other critics explain that the dark themes and dim lighting used in productions of Macbeth simply put the actors on edge and make the production more accident-prone (Olivero, 2018). Furthermore, Dr. Paul Menzer, a professor at Mary Baldwin College, asserts that many of the accidents associated with Macbeth are simply the result of poor technical design, and that because Macbeth is performed so frequently, accidents are bound to happen every once in a while (Witmore, 2016).

In line with the assertions made by Dr. Menzer, I think a host of cognitive distortions are at the root of the Scottish Play Curse. First and foremost, I believe that the curse arose from a misunderstanding of base rates and probabilities. For example, approximately 50 professional productions of Macbeth were put on from 2011-2016, and that doesn’t include the thousands of non-professional productions performed by school, local, and regional theatres (Kopf, 2016). Probabilistically speaking, with that many productions with many performances each, something is bound to go wrong eventually. The true problem, however, is that people only notice the handful of times that something does go wrong because it “proves” the curse, meanwhile they ignore all of the examples of when nothing goes wrong – a phenomenon associated with the confirmation bias (Heshmat, 2015). Beyond the probabilistic factors, I would argue that performers use the curse as an excuse for mistakes. For example, if an actor forgets his lines, it’s a lot easier to blame it on the curse than it is to blame himself – but if he does well, it’s because he’s a great actor. This tendency to blame external failures for bad outcomes, but attribute successes to internal factors, is an example of the self-serving bias (Fournier, 2018). Furthermore, blaming the curse can help reduce the cognitive dissonance an actor feels when he makes a mistake, but knows he’s a good actor. By blaming the curse, he can adjust the cognition from “I made a mistake” to “the curse messed me up,” a belief that is more consonant with his knowledge of his own skill (Mcleod, 2018). Finally, many actors report having adhered to the tradition of the curse simply because it’s better to be safe than sorry (French, 2016), an attitude that is common with superstitions, particularly when the cost of engaging in the curse-preventing behavior is low (Van Zandt, 2019).

Beyond the cognitive distortions associated with the Scottish Play Curse, there are, without a doubt, a variety of social factors at work. First and foremost, I think it’s important to realize that belief in the curse, because it is held by such a specific group of people (theatre people), can serve as a group identifier or status symbol. As with many things in life, this helps the performers to create an in-group vs. out-group scenario in which believing in the curse is an indicator that someone belongs in the in-group. This is a powerful factor because new members may start to believe in the curse (or at least say they do) so that they fit in better with the group because they want to be accepted by their peers and superiors (Whitbourne, 2010). Furthermore, I think it’s important to realize that, particularly at the highest level, the theatre industry is very competitive, and under the high levels of pressure, having an excuse for a bad performance could become even more essential than it is in lower-pressure environments (Mbe, 2016). As such, the curse could easily become a handy crutch for performers who constantly fear losing their careers. Finally, many actors claim that the key to getting into character is to allow the character to permeate all aspects of their life, and since the story of Macbeth is dependent on a belief in witchcraft, developing a belief in the veracity of the Scottish Play Curse could simply be a technique for developing the highest-quality performance (Ohikuare, 2014). As this technique is passed down from actor to actor, it could easily create a social environment that is more-open to extraordinary beliefs than most.

Ultimately, I believe that the Scottish Play Curse, despite the terrible tragedies with which it has been associated, is a rather light-hearted extraordinary belief that, over the course of time, has turned from a genuine fear into little more than an inside joke for actors across the western world. While many of these actors may still have that nagging voice inside their head telling them to avoid saying the name Macbeth, I believe that very few would tell you that they truly believe in the Scottish Play Curse or any other form of witchcraft. That said, many actors are perfectly open to using the curse as a tool to mitigate the impact of a mistake, but instead of depicting it as a genuine curse as they might have in the 17^th century, today they use it to turn their mistake into something to laugh at – and having that knowledge of the curse helps them to become more ingrained in their theatre community. All things considered, I don’t think the Scottish Play Curse is much different than any other superstition. Have you ever knocked on wood, thrown salt over your shoulder, or worn a lucky pair of underwear for too many days just to be safe? These behaviors, in my humble opinion, are no different than the way that actors view the Scottish Play Curse – a charming antiquity that can’t hurt, but can most definitely make you feel attached to the people around you because they do it too.

References

Apmann, S. B. (2016, August 25). The Astor Place Riot. Retrieved from https://gvshp.org/blog/2016/08/25/the-astor-place-riot/

Faires, R. (2018, November 2). Macbeth’s Myriad of Misfortunes. The Austin Chronicle. Retrieved from https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/arts/2018-11-02/macbeths-myriad-of-misfortunes/

Fournier, G. (2018, October 08). Self-Serving Bias. Retrieved from https://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/self-serving-bias/

French, E. (2016, October 18). How to counteract the curse of Macbeth (er… The Scottish Play). Retrieved from https://shakespeareandbeyond.folger.edu/2016/10/18/macbeth-curse-scottish-play/

Heshmat, S. (2015, April 23). What Is Confirmation Bias? Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias

Kopf, D. (2016, September 22). What Is Shakespeare’s Most Popular Play? Retrieved from https://priceonomics.com/what-is-shakespeares-most-popular-play/

Mbe, V. S. (2016, May 25). Theatre, Performance and Society. Retrieved from https://thoughteconomics.com/theatre-performance-and-society/

Mcleod, S. (2018, February 05). Cognitive Dissonance. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

Ohikuare, J. (2014, March 10). How Actors Create Emotions: A Problematic Psychology. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/how-actors-create-emotions-a-problematic-psychology/284291/

Olivero, T. (2018, August 22). Macbeth: But, like, how cursed is it, really? Retrieved from https://www.shakespeare-machine.org/news/2018/8/4/but-like-how-cursed-is-it-really

Royal Shakespeare Company. (2019). The Curse of the Scottish Play | Macbeth. Retrieved from https://www.rsc.org.uk/macbeth/about-the-play/the-scottish-play

The Shakespeare Company. (2017, May 25). The Macbeth Curse: A History. Retrieved from https://www.shakespearecompany.com/about-us/blog/the-macbeth-curse-a-history/

Sherman, M. (2015, July 31). The Macbeth Curse: Myth or Reality? Retrieved from https://www.santacruzshakespeare.org/the-macbeth-curse-myth-or-reality/

Van Zandt, T. (2019, February 7). Learning and Superstition [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved from https://osu.instructure.com/courses/50663/pages/superstition

Whitbourne, S. K. (2010, December 7). In-groups, out-groups, and the psychology of crowds. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201012/in-groups-out-groups-and-the-psychology-crowds

Witmore, M. (2016, September 20). Shakespeare Unlimited: Episode 57 [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from https://www.folger.edu/shakespeare-unlimited/actor-anecdotes?_ga=2.178261092.1186305577.1550295116-565614297.1550295116

One fascinating extraordinary belief that I have just recently come to know is the idea
that the country of Australia doesn’t exist. The theory holds that Australia is just an elaborate
cover up by the British government for a mass murder. People believe that when Australia was
founded as a penal colony that the prisoners were killed instead of sent to the nonexistent island,
but England couldn’t admit that outright. Now these people would argue that it has simply been
too long, so the British government maintains the conspiracy so as not to be viewed as lying and
monstrous. The main people that believe this are people who believe in the flat Earth theory,
thinking that to execute these prisoners they sailed them over the edge of the world. This belief
has found a recent resurgence in notability though its height of popularity was back somewhere
around 2006. This belief is important and extraordinary because it shows the depths to which
people may believe the most insane things, and how one extraordinary belief may stem from, or
feed off, another extraordinary belief.

Obviously, there are many things that one would think proves the existence of Australia,
but believers have ways to refute each. There isn’t much of any proof that Australia is fake, but if
they can show that the things that are used for the counterargument may be wrong, then the only
explanation for that is that there is some interest in keeping Australia, despite the lack of
evidence. One arguing that Australia does exist might point to its inclusion on maps as evidence.
One believing that it doesn’t exist would say that the British government has forced
cartographers to include it as part of the cover up. One might point to it’s being in satellite
imaging such as GPS, but again, that is just because of the meddling of the British government.
Surely meeting a person of seeing an animal native to Australia would prove its existence, but
maybe the people are just actors and the animals are from somewhere else in the world.
Ultimately, one can visit this place, which might indubitably
believers would respond that it is just a cover up, that if one attempts to travel there, they are just
taken to parts of South America or islands near the area of Australia. In this way, if one buys the
possibility of the cover up, then at least this would call into question the existence of Australia. It
is easier for people to believe in this to try to disprove the other side instead of proving their
own.

For this belief, people who believe it are severely misinformed, not only about
geography, but also about how arguments work. They leave it to people that would disagree with
them to prove them wrong. If they have a belief then the burden of proof for whether the belief is
true or not, lies with them, not with the other side. They seem to believe that simple doubt about
something’s existence is equivalent to that thing not existing, but if you look at that logic it
doesn’t really track well. They do not present anything that would work to force the conclusion
that Australia doesn’t exist. At very least most other conspiracies of this sort have proof, however
flimsy, that it really did happen that way. This one, however, just tries to ignore history,
geography, and a whole other culture. It would be quite an elaborate lie for the British
government to invent the Australian culture we know today, as well as the Aborigines that were
there before. Ultimately it seems like the believers in this theory are belligerently ignorant of
many facets of the world.

This belief is one that would theoretically fall out of favor quickly and completely, but
because there is a tight knit group of people that will believe any conspiracy, they can find solace
and support. It almost seems like there might exist some upping the ante in that conspiracy nuts
feed off one another, so even if they don’t believe in the same conspiracy they feel like they have
fellow “truth” seekers with which they can feel safe and can take their ideas to whatever end they
may desire. They see already established, outlandish theories, and so they feel like they can put
their whole heart into their own belief in their own way, trying to examine the most well hid
“truths” of society. It also helps to maintain this belief that there exist other such beliefs with
people positing that there are places that don’t exist such as Finland. Especially now, with the
prevalence of the internet it is so easy to connect with the small amount of people out there that
hold their extraordinary belief and so feel no embarrassment of saying anything they think when
most people would say they are crazy, or some other synonym.

In terms of psychology there are many logical fallacies and biases at work here. First,
there is circular reasoning evident in their argument. The logic seems to go that Australia doesn’t
exist, therefore the proof of those who say it does is just some conspiracy, therefore Australia
doesn’t exist. These people already hold an extraordinary belief in the flat earth theory, and then
they go even more extreme to claim that a large land mass doesn’t exist. These people seem to try
to set themselves apart, believing they are smarter than everyone else in knowing the earth is flat,
but that isn’t enough. They also want to set themselves apart from the other believers by
assuming another extraordinary belief. These are people who likely are very distrusting of
government; people who would question every piece of information pertaining to government
action. This almost seems like a belief that may have started as a joke or something of the sort
that wasn’t to be taken seriously, but then somehow gained traction in an already misinformed
demographic. These people in a way also take confirmation bias to the extreme so that they view
any proof as vague enough to interpret in their own way, finding ways to discount plain facts.
They also seem to engage in post hoc explanations by taking any piece of information and giving
a reason for it after the fact to show it false.

Further information can be found through a quick Google search or by checking out some
of these reports:
• https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12043583
• https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/australia/articles/some-people-think-australia-doesntexist-heres-why/
• https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/953382/Flat-Earth-theory-Australia-not-realconspiracy/amp
• https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2018/apr/15/australia-doesnt-existand-other-bizarre-geographic-conspiracies-that-wont-go-away