> I think they’re still going “deep” in that they will focus very heavily on one subject in their conspiracy rabbit hole.*
Which is totally fair, but may not be what I imagined when I said "deep".
> There was that dude a few years ago who was trying to build a rocket to “see if he could see the curve”, for example.
Building a rocket sounds like fun, to be honest. If you are also of the proclivity that you are entertained by claiming to believe in a flat earth, combining your hobbies seems like a pretty good idea.
> I have seen some fairly convincing vlogs where the people at least seem to really believe it.
At the same time people don't normally talk about the things they (feel they) truly understand. It is why we don't sit around talking about 1+1=2 all day, every day. Humans crave novelty. It is agonizing having to listen to what you already know. As such, one needs to be heavily skeptical of someone speaking about a subject they claim to understand well without financial incentive to overcome the boredom of having to talk about something they know well. And where there is financial incentive, you still need to be skeptical that someone isn't just making shit up for profit.
When someone is speaking causally about something, you can be certain that either: 1) They recognize that they don't have a solid understanding and are looking to learn more through conversation. 2) Are making shit up for attention.
There is no good way to know how many flat earthers never speak of it, I suppose, but as far as the vocal ones go I don't suppose they are really looking to learn more...
Which is totally fair, but may not be what I imagined when I said "deep".
> There was that dude a few years ago who was trying to build a rocket to “see if he could see the curve”, for example.
Building a rocket sounds like fun, to be honest. If you are also of the proclivity that you are entertained by claiming to believe in a flat earth, combining your hobbies seems like a pretty good idea.
> I have seen some fairly convincing vlogs where the people at least seem to really believe it.
At the same time people don't normally talk about the things they (feel they) truly understand. It is why we don't sit around talking about 1+1=2 all day, every day. Humans crave novelty. It is agonizing having to listen to what you already know. As such, one needs to be heavily skeptical of someone speaking about a subject they claim to understand well without financial incentive to overcome the boredom of having to talk about something they know well. And where there is financial incentive, you still need to be skeptical that someone isn't just making shit up for profit.
When someone is speaking causally about something, you can be certain that either: 1) They recognize that they don't have a solid understanding and are looking to learn more through conversation. 2) Are making shit up for attention.
There is no good way to know how many flat earthers never speak of it, I suppose, but as far as the vocal ones go I don't suppose they are really looking to learn more...