Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2022/Conspiracy theory motivation

Heading casing

Hi KingMob221. FYI, the recommended Wikiversity heading style uses sentence casing. For example: Self-determination theory rather than Self-Determination Theory Here's an example chapter with correct heading casing: Growth mindset development -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Topic development feedback

The topic development has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to see editing changes made whilst reviewing this chapter plan. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Topic development marks are available via UCLearn. Note that marks are based on what was available before the due date, whereas the comments below may also be about all material on the page at the time of providing this feedback.

Title The title is correctly worded and formatted The sub-title is correctly worded and formatted User page Good Description about self provided – consider expanding Consider linking to your eportfolio page and/or any other professional online profile or resume such as LinkedIn. This is not required, but it can be useful to interlink your professional networks. Link provided to book chapter (rename to make it more user-friendly) Social contribution At least one contribution has been made and summarised with indirect link(s) to evidence Add direct links to evidence. To do this: View the page history, select the version of the page before and after your contributions, click "compare selected revisions", and then use this website address as a direct link to evidence for listing on your user page. For more info, see Making and summarising social contributions. Use a numbered list (see Tutorial 02) Add a brief summary of each contribution Headings Basic, 2-level heading structure – could benefit from further development by expanding the structure Key points Promising development of key points, with relevant citations Overview - Consider adding: a brief, evocative description of the problem focus questions an image an example or case study Strive for an integrated balance of theory and research Include more in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters Consider including more examples/case studies Conclusion (the most important section): Hasn't been developed Figure Excellent – A relevant figure is presented and it is appropriately captioned Cite each figure at least once in the main text References Very good Hanging indent spacing fixed For APA referencing style, check and correct: page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) Resources See also Excellent External links Excellent

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Content Suggestion

Hi there. Brandolini's law states: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."

This may be useful in your overview about the dangers of conspiracy theories? check out the Wikipedia page for Brandolini's law if you are interested. U3162201 (discuss • contribs) 01:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Suggested source: Thinking Preferences and Conspiracy Belief

Hi There! Not sure if you've checked this source out yet but I thought it could provide helpful information. It discusses the Jumping-to conclusion bias and if it has a more pronounced rate in those who display a strong belief in conspiracy theories.

[1]https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.568942/full BenjiD'Ange (discuss • contribs) 06:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Book chapter review and feedback

This chapter has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing through the chapter. Chapter marks will be available via UCLearn along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Overall Overall, this is an insufficient chapter mainly because it is so brief I suspect that the recommended 5 topic development hours and 45 book chapter hours were not invested in preparing this chapter. Well under the maximum word count, so there is room to expand For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Basic Overview Briefly explains the problem or phenomenon Consider introducing a case study or example or using an image to help engage reader interest Add focus questions in a feature box to help guide the reader and structure the chapter Theory – Breadth Promising, but insufficient use of relevant psychological theory about this topic Theory – Depth Insufficient depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Some use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Research – Key findings Promising, but insufficient review of relevant research Research – Critical thinking Insufficient critical thinking about relevant research is evident Critical thinking about research could be further evidenced by: describing the methodology (e.g., sample, measures) in important studies discussing the direction of relationships considering the strength of relationships acknowledging limitations pointing out critiques/counterarguments suggesting specific directions for future research Integration Insufficient integration between theory and research Conclusion Insufficient as a cohesive summary of the best available psychological theory and research about the topic Written expression – Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is basic The chapter could be improved by developing some of the bullet points into full paragraph format Grammar The grammar for some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the tags) Grammar-checking tools are available in most internet browsers and word processing software packages.[2] Another option is to share draft work with peers and ask for their assistance. Check and correct use of possessive apostrophes (e.g., cats vs cat's vs cats')[3] Use serial commas[4] – they are part of APA style and are generally recommended by grammaticists. See explanatory video (1 min) Abbreviations Check and correct grammatical formatting for abbreviations (such as e.g., i.e., etc.) Figures Provide more detailed Figure captions to help connect the figure to the text Figure captions use the correct format Refer to each Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1) Citations are not in full APA style (7th ed.). For example: List multiple citations in alphabetical order by first author surname Select up to a maximum of three citations per point (i.e., avoid citing four or more citations to support a single point) If there are three or more authors, cite the first author followed by et al., then year. For example, either: in-text, Smith et al. (2020), or in parentheses (Smith et al., 2020) References are not in full APA style. For example: Check and correct use of italicisation Separate page numbers using an en-dash (–) rather than an em-dash (—) Move non-peer-reviewed sources to the "External links" section Written expression – Learning features Basic use of learning features Very good use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. Adding more interwiki links for the first mention of key words and technical concepts would make the text even more interactive. See example. No use of embedded in-text links to related book chapters. Embedding in-text links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project. Basic use of image(s) No use of table(s) No use of feature box(es) No use of quiz(zes) Basic use of case studies or examples Excellent use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Basic use of external links in the "External links" section Use bullet points per Tutorial 02 Include sources in parentheses Social contribution ~1 logged social contributions with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The "conspiracy theorist" archetype as a method for discrediting dissent and other inconveniences.

It seems likely that this trope or archetype is maintained as a fixture of popular culture for the purpose of casting doubt and uncertainty upon various inconvenient disclosures and dissent. In other words, someone who claims that the earth is flat and builds such a reputation around various false or incredulous claims, or even just presents such an appearance, would then be a poor representative for a given disclosure or scandal and may harm the credibility of certain people or information merely by association alone. Or rather, that's what I'd do if I wanted to ruin the credibility of some disclosure or political objective. Send a bunch of kooks to lend their "authority" to the matter. I think the article needs to at least acknowledge this possibility, which is self-evident as a public relations strategy. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 23:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I implore the author(s) to consider this carefully, and I'll ping @Jtneill: since they seem to be the primary author. I'm hardly the first person to observe that psychiatry is frequently abused to pathologize dissent or otherwise control public opinion. Broadly, the article conflates "conspiratorial beliefs" with irrational thought patterns, and obviously this might give the reader a skewed perspective. I could go on, but I'll wait to see what others have to say. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)