Skip to main content

AiPT!: Why does belief in Bigfoot and Nessie Persist?

Adventures in Poor Taste has a new article up on their website about why people continue to believe in cryptids even when there is no evidence, which reads:

Of course by now you've heard about the 'environmental DNA' research recently conducted in Loch Ness. It's a neat, new technique that sifts through the stuff that sloughs off organisms to find out what's living in a particular place. If something novel and undocumented turns up in the Loch - that would be pretty great.
But what if it doesn't? Will that make Nessie believers give up the ghost? Not likely. We reached out to AiPT! contributor and Board-Certified psychiatrist, Richard Schloss, to find out why.
 The Loch Ness monster. Bigfoot/Sasquatch. The Yeti. El Chupacabra. The Mothman. The Jersey Devil. These mythical creatures, or cryptids, are quite literally the stuff of legends. And yet, millions of otherwise (presumably) rational people believe in them, study them, and in many cases claim to have seen them. The old International Society of Cryptozoology (ISC) lasted only from 1982 to 1998 - but its successor, the International Cryptozoology Society, was founded in 2016 and is still going strong. Not to mention that 100 episodes of Finding Bigfoot that have graced(?) our television screens.
Cryptozoology (literally 'the study of hidden animals') is considered a pseudoscience for several reasons. Cryptozoologists search for and compile shreds of evidence, much of which is based on notoriously unreliable eyewitness reports, and tend to disregard evidence that contradicts what they want so desperately to believe. 
When physical 'evidence' for the existence of cryptids has been enthusiastically reported, it has invariably been quietly debunked soon after. 'Sasquatch fur' found by campers or hikers turns out to be that of a bear or coyote when analyzed. The famous (infamous?) Patterson-Gimlin 'Bigfoot Film' showing a grainy image of a large, apelike creature walking away and turning to look at the camera is clearly a man in a gorilla suit.

And yet, a Harris poll found that '71% of Americans believe in 'miracles,' 42% of Americans believe that 'ghosts' exist, 41% think that 'extrasensory perception' (e.g. telepathy) is possible, and 29% believe in astrology. As reported by Sander van der Linden, 21% of Americans think the government is hiding aliens, 28% of Americans believe that a mysterious, secret elite power is plotting a New World Order (NWO), and 14% of Americans believe in Bigfoot.' Belief in conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and the paranormal all tends to correlate. 
 Why is this? According to van der Linden, the tendency to engage in magical thinking is linked to overall cognitive style, in terms of whether the individual is inherently an intuitive or a reflective thinker. Intuitive thinkers are the 'go-with-the-gut' types, tending to depend on initial emotional response to know what 'feels' correct, whereas reflective thinkers tend to mistrust emotional responses and wait until all information is available before reaching a conclusion.
Before you decide that reflective thinking is clearly superior to intuitive thinking, remember that both cognitive approaches evolved because both have a role to play in the survival of the individual. One cannot decided to search for more corroborating evidence when the possible nearby presence of a large predator is detected. At least, if one hopes to live very long.
So why, exactly, are intuitive thinkers more likely to fall prey to magical thinking? One suggestion comes from psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, who coined the term 'conjunction fallacy.' This represents a basic error in reasoning in which people tend to assume that unlikely events become more plausible if they occur together. Actually, the likelihood of both events occurring together is far less than that of either event occurring alone. 
If we say that Mme. Soandso has precognition, a certain percentage of people may believe it; but if we now say that Mme. Soandso can read minds and predict the future, many intuitive types will wrongly assume that both of those claims are more likely because they seem related, when in fact the likelihood of both being true is less likely than either one alone. And we find that people who endorse one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe in other baseless theories about the same set of events because 'they can't all be a coincidence.'
For many believers in cryptozoology, 'cognitive dissonance' often comes into play. This concept, first described by psychologist Leon Festinger in the 1950s, holds that when individuals are confronted with evidence that contradicts their strongly held beliefs, it causes mental conflict and tension. To relieve this tension, these individuals will employ one or more defense mechanisms: rejecting outright the validity of the new evidence, insisting that the apparent conflict is illusory and in fact no conflict exists, or incorporating the new evidence why claiming that it actually strengthens the original claim rather than weakening it.

From being interested in cryptozoology for almost ten years, I can tell you that all of the things in the above paragraph are used by those who whole-heartedly believe in cryptids all the time…

Now, back to the article:

An example of this lattermost phenomenon, is when conspiracy theorists use apparent contradictions between factual reports as 'evidence' of a government cover-up. Then, when the alleged discrepancy is shown to be nonexistent, they switch to insisting this is 'proof' of their claims, because 'only the government could cover its tracks so well.'

Definitely proves this was fake!

The frequency with which people believe in cryptids and conspiracy theories also stems in part from the basic human desire to feel special - to believe that one is not just a much in the dark as the average person, but is in fact privy to the most secretly held 'insider' information. For such believers, their ability to find the 'hidden evidence' - which is alternatively described as either cleverly disguised, or else painfully obvious to those who will but open their minds - gives them a sense of importance, or being both a public service whistleblower and a danger to government cloak-and-dagger types.
The truth is indeed 'out there' - but it's supported by the evidence, and if the evidence points elsewhere, then our monsters must be banished back to the shadows of human superstition from whence they came. Of course, as we can see, that's easier said than done.

All of the things noted about cryptozoology in this article are very true, and those really interested in the subject should take note! Share with others too!



Popular posts from this blog

The Burrunjor - A Present-Day Australian Dinosaur?

Australia is said to be home to a variety of cryptid creatures, from the aquatic Bunyip, the man-like Yowies and Wakkis, and the thylacine. There is another, however, that could be considered stranger than all the others. Why? Because its said to be something that should have gone extinct 65 million years ago!

The creature in question is called the Burrunjor, and is said to be a surviving dinosaur. Now, before you think that there is no possible way the Burrunjor could be real, remember that there are sightings and stories of other dinosaur-like creatures from around the world - for example, the mokele-mbembe, kongamato, and others in Africa, "Mounatin Boomers" in the U.S., the Partridge Creek Monster, and more.

Over the years there have been many sightings and stories of the Burrunjor in Australia, including this one from Rex and Heather Gilroy from the 1970s:

"In 1978, a Northern Territory bushman and explorer, Bryan Clark, related a story of his own that had taken pl…

Some Thoughts on Alaska Monsters: Bigfoot Edition

So far, two episodes of Alaska Monsters: Bigfoot Edition have aired. Here are some of my thoughts on the show.

First off, let's start with the team, the Midnight Sons. There are a few new members on the team this season. The old leader, Little Bear, is gone, and now Crusty (the guy with the bear claw in his beard) is leader of the team. Other members are: Dudley (new guy), the team "forensic expert," Todd, the "trap engineer," Bulldog (new guy), the "survival expert," Rhett, the "greenhorn" (rookie), and of course Face, the "veteran tracker."

Compared to the AIMS Team of Mountain Monsters, Crusty is Trapper, Todd is Willy, Rhett is Buck, Bulldog would probably be Huckleberry, Dudley would probably be Jeff, and Face would be Wild Bill.

I haven't seen the first episode, "Bigfoot of the Arctic Circle: Siberian Giant," but I did watch episode two, "Bigfoot of Denali: Wind Walker" last Saturday. I actually though…

Mountain Monsters - Coming Back in 2018?

Destination America's Mountain Monsters was a huge hit when it premiered in 2013. It's had five seasons through last year.

Season 3 started a "Bigfoot Edition" and season 4 introduced a "rogue team." Last season focused entirely on this "rogue team" and ended with really no conclusion.

Over the past 2 Saturdays, some old season 2 episodes of Mountain Monsters have been playing in the evenings. Could this be a sign that the show might be back for another season this year, or does it have no meaning at all?

If the show does come back, where can they go? Last season made absolutely no sense at all and the whole thing was pretty stupid. If it does come back, I think they should go back to just monster hunting like they did in the first two seasons. Once they went to just "Bigfoot Edition" things went downhill quick.