Oct 23 2017

Conspiracy Thinking and Pattern Recognition

conspiracy thinking1Humans are conspiracy theorists. Seeing and believing in conspiracies appears to be a fundamental part of how our minds work. Psychologists are trying to understand rigorously exactly why this is, and what factors predict a tendency to believe in conspiracies.

A recent study adds to those that link conspiracy thinking with pattern recognition. The researchers did a series of experiments in which they showed that the belief in one or more conspiracies correlates with the tendency to see patterns in random data, such as random coin tosses or noisy pictures. Further, when subjects read about one conspiracy theory they were then slightly more likely to endorse other conspiracy theories and to see patterns in random noise.

They conclude:

We conclude that illusory pattern perception is a central cognitive mechanism accounting for conspiracy theories and supernatural beliefs.”

This makes sense, which is why psychologists have been studying it in the first place. First, we know that people in general have a tendency to see patterns in randomness. That is part of how our brains make sense of the world. Essentially, we are bombarded with various sensory streams. Our brains parse those streams as best it can, filtering out noise and distraction, and then searching for familiar patterns. When it finds a possible match it then processes the information to make the perceived pattern more apparent. That pattern is then what we perceive.

That is important to understand – your perception actually changes, not just your interpretation of it, and this change is subconscious. When your brain encounters speech-like noise, it tries to find the best match, and then those are the words you hear. This process is also affected by visual cues (literally reading lips) and highly susceptible to suggestion. (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIwrgAnx6Q8)

The same is true visually. Your brain connects the apparent dots, fills in missing information, enhances some lines and glosses over others, and constructs a three-dimensional interpretation out of two-dimensional cues.

So, the thinking went, perhaps we do the same thing cognitively – we take bits of information and look for connections, for an underlying pattern that makes sense of it all. We then fill in the gaps with speculation about how it all fits together.

Not only does this process fit our massively parallel pattern-seeking brain function, it can be highly adaptive. Especially in a complex social species, being able to anticipate possible threats, or notice when others are working against your interests, would be highly advantageous.

In addition it seems as if we have a tendency to err on the side of seeing patterns, even ones that are illusory – that are not really there. We see faces in clouds or in NASA photos of Mars.

A distinct but related phenomenon is called hyperactive agency detection. We tend to assume that things happen for a reason, that there is a deliberate agent behind events. When, for example, we see the bushes shaking we assume it is a predator rather than the wind.

If you combine the tendency to see patterns with the tendency to assume agency – you have the makings of conspiracy theories.

But this is not the whole story. While we may tend to see illusory patterns and assume agency, we are also endowed with logic and critical thinking.  These are also skills that need to be taught and practiced. They give us the ability to evaluate apparent patterns and determine if they are real.

And again, it’s easy to make sense of this. If you had to design a machine that had the task of finding all real patterns, but only real patterns, how would you do that? This is a “sensitivity vs specificity” issue that all diagnostic tests face. The more sensitive your detection equipment is the more patterns you will find, but the more false positives you will have also. If you dial back the false positives, then you lose some true positives.

One way to solve this dilemma is to have a two-step process. The first step is highly sensitive, it finds all possible patterns even though this results in detecting many false patterns. But then there is a second highly specific filter in which you remove the false positives. You are then left with all the true positives.

Our hyperactive pattern recognition is the first step – we are highly sensitive to any possible pattern. Our logic and critical thinking is the second step – we evaluate possible patterns to see if they are likely to be real. Do the patterns make sense, are they plausible, are they independently verified?

The burning question for psychologists is this – do people who have a heightened tendency to believe in conspiracy theories have increased pattern recognition, decreased critical thinking filters, or both? In psychology the usual answer to such questions is, yes. People are variable, and we are likely to see every permutation.

What this and other studies document is that people who tend to believe in conspiracies have a greater tendency to detect patterns in the first place. This probably does not entirely explain conspiracy thinking, but it is part.

Further, the tendency to see conspiracies is not entirely a fixed personality feature. It seems to be modifiable by situational factors. This and other studies suggest that believing in one conspiracy makes someone more susceptible to believing in others. Conspiracy thinking also increases when someone feels threatened or insecure, so it is partly a protective mechanism. And conspiracy thinking can be moderated by teaching critical thinking skills – by being more skeptical.

The critical thinking component is the most modifiable variable. This can actually be taught. Basic scientific literacy helps also as it is useful for the reality filter.

None of this means there aren’t real conspiracies out there. There are (although not the “grand” type of conspiracies favored by fanatics), but we need to filter out the fake ones to find them.

33 responses so far

33 Responses to “Conspiracy Thinking and Pattern Recognition”

  1. TheTentaclēson 23 Oct 2017 at 10:07 am

    Amusingly in Study 3 they found that people believed existing conspiracy theories more strongly AFTER looking at Jackson Pollock paintings than before!!!

    !!! Stay away from MOMA kids !!!

    Predictive pattern recognition is overall a useful adaptive skill, but we should be judging these internal models probabilistically, not deterministically. Uncontrolled hallucinations are the step above this, where the generative model of the internal pattern totally eclipses the external data. There is encouraging initial evidence that frames several psychiatric diseases into this predictive coding gone-awry framework…

    Predictive Processing, Source Monitoring, and Psychosis
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5424073/

    Perceptual instability in schizophrenia: Probing predictive coding accounts of delusions with ambiguous stimuli
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scog.2015.03.005 (pretty weak correlation though)

    Deficits in Predictive Coding Underlie Hallucinations in Schizophrenia
    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0200-14.2014

  2. Lobsterbashon 23 Oct 2017 at 10:31 am

    Steve,

    As you mentioned toward the bottom, there are probably a lot of cognitive processing quirks that directly contribute to the tendency of conspiratorial thinking. It is easy to imagine how a lot of the biases/fallacies you discuss go into it.

    Are you arguing that erroneous pattern perception is perhaps the main driver?

  3. Steven Novellaon 23 Oct 2017 at 11:01 am

    I personally don’t think it’s the main driver. I think it is a contributor. My guess is that impaired critical thinking/reality testing is the main problem. I can see patterns all over the place, but I know most of them are BS. The problem is when you think all the patterns you see are real.

    But I am open to whatever the research says.

  4. hardnoseon 23 Oct 2017 at 1:15 pm

    Teach everyone critical thinking skills and that will be the end of religion! No more war, no more political controversies. Materialist paradise!

  5. Sarahon 23 Oct 2017 at 1:19 pm

    Strawman, Hardnose.
    That wasn’t his claim

  6. hardnoseon 23 Oct 2017 at 1:46 pm

    That is WHY they do this kind of research. The goal is to find out why the average person is stupid and gullible. It has been going on for decades, one contrived experiment after another showing how illogical everyone is, unless they have been educated to improve their “critical thinking skills.”

    And at the very center of the question of human fallibility is the religion problem. Why has it been so popular, and why is it still? Ah, we can explain it! Lack of critical thinking skills.

    Now we find that everyone is good at pattern recognition, but only the specially educated elites (such as this blog’s author) are able to limit and control their natural pattern recognition abilities so they don’t run wild. When pattern recognition runs wild it generates crazy beliefs, like the Virgin Mary appearing on a grill cheese sandwich.

    And it is these grilled cheese revelations that form the basis for all religion, and all mystical/supernatural belief systems.

    When Moses heard God talking to him, it was really the wind blowing, but Moses lacked the critical thinking skills to know that. Stupidly, he interpreted the wind as the voice of God speaking to him personally.

    This study supports what we already knew — religion is rubbish, and religious believers are dopes.

  7. tb29607on 23 Oct 2017 at 2:56 pm

    Poe’s law?

  8. Lukas Xavieron 23 Oct 2017 at 3:33 pm

    When your brain encounters speech-like noise, it tries to find the best match, and then those are the words you hear.

    I’m reminded of The Murders in Rue Morgue.

  9. BillyJoe7on 23 Oct 2017 at 3:51 pm

    tb,

    “Poe’s law?”

    Unfortunately, no.
    Just the usual combination of blissfully unaware stupidity and ignorance.

  10. Dick88on 23 Oct 2017 at 3:55 pm

    Super smart skeptical atheist: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

    NIST: Oh hey, um, we’re going to say in our report that WTC7 was *the first skyscraper ever* to totally collapse in a few seconds because it was on fire, instead of because it had explosives in it, but we didn’t use any, you know, physical evidence.

    Atheist: That’s OK!

    NIST: We came up with our theory without looking at a single piece of the building, at all. That doesn’t bother you?

    Atheist: Nope!

    NIST: And the physical evidence we used for the twin towers report isn’t exactly, you know, statistically significant. We don’t even have a real theory for the total collapse. We never did an actual forensic investigation.

    Atheist: I AM A SMART GENIUS!!! I DON’T NEED ANY EVIDENCE FOR THINGS I ALREADY BELIEVE!!!

    NIST: Do you even know how science works? It’s supposed to start with the evidence, not by making up a theory that supports your prejudices. The actual physical evidence could totally support the controlled demolition scenario and we wouldn’t know, since all the physical evidence was destroyed. You’re really ok with that?

    Atheist: HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ATHEISM!!!

    Jokes aside, I know what responses I’m likely to get. “Building 7 was on fire for hours and no sprinklers and it got damaged by the twin towers blowing up!” But none of these are known risk factors for total skyscraper collapse. Even NIST said these conditions weren’t remarkable relative to the actual collapse. And you have no evidence to support any of these theories anyway.

    Long story short, skeptical atheists use a facade of science to gain legitimacy for their weird virtue-signalling thought control club, but a total lack of scientific merit is never an obstacle to preserving their cherished beliefs. They’re basically just young-earth creationists with different myths.

  11. BBBlueon 23 Oct 2017 at 4:22 pm

    Stupidly, he interpreted the wind as the voice of God speaking to him personally.

    Or maybe someone made it all up out of whole cloth.

  12. chikoppion 23 Oct 2017 at 5:21 pm

    [hardnose] Now we find that everyone is good at pattern recognition, but only the specially educated elites (such as this blog’s author) are able to limit and control their natural pattern recognition abilities so they don’t run wild. When pattern recognition runs wild it generates crazy beliefs, like the Virgin Mary appearing on a grill cheese sandwich.

    Here are the actual concluding remarks.

    It has frequently been noted that both conspiracy and supernatural beliefs are widespread among the population of normal, mentally sane adults (Lindeman & Aarnio, 2007; Oliver & Wood, 2014; Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009; Wiseman & Watt, 2006). Why are these irrational beliefs so widespread? In the present research, we addressed this question by focusing on the cognitive processes underlying irrational beliefs. The answer that emerges from our data is that irrational beliefs are associated with a distortion of an otherwise normal and functional cognitive process, namely, pattern perception. People need to detect existing patterns in order to function well in their physical and social environment; however, this process also leads them to sometimes detect patterns in chaotic or randomly generated stimuli. Whereas the role of illusory pattern perception has frequently been suggested as a core process underlying irrational beliefs, the actual evidence for this assertion hitherto was unsatisfactory. The present findings offer empirical evidence for the role of illusory pattern perception in irrational beliefs. We conclude that illusory pattern perception is a central cognitive ingredient of beliefs in conspiracy theories and supernatural phenomena.

    It is not always obvious how to separate signal from noise or correlation from causation. So yes, being primed to seek for patterns or neurologically sensitive may very well result in more erroneous conclusions being adopted. Likewise, being aware of methods to evaluate impressions and/or common causes of error may very well reduce unwarranted acceptance of erroneous relationships.

    That is, after all, the purpose of the scientific method.

  13. hardnoseon 23 Oct 2017 at 6:05 pm

    “It has frequently been noted that both conspiracy and supernatural beliefs are widespread among the population of normal, mentally sane adults. Why are these irrational beliefs so widespread?”

    We “know” that all supernatural beliefs are irrational because the philosophy of materialism says they are.

    We can explain why mentally sane people can have crazy beliefs — it’s because they lack “critical thinking skills.”

    So it isn’t enough to be sane — your thoughts can still be crazy! Unless you are educated into the philosophy of materialism.

    In other words, everyone who disagrees with my philosophy is insane and in need of “education.”

  14. chikoppion 23 Oct 2017 at 7:21 pm

    [hardnose] We “know” that all supernatural beliefs are irrational because the philosophy of materialism says they are.

    They measured mathematical (non-ideological) pattern seeking and agreement with completely fictitious conspiracy theories as well. Neither of which have anything to do with “philosophy” or “materialism” or “elitism” or any of the other straw men you so depend upon.

  15. Robneyon 23 Oct 2017 at 7:36 pm

    @hardnose,

    It seems you don’t object to the actual findings, the fairly non-controversial fact that human pattern recognition can return false positives from random noise, and that this correlates with belief in conspiracy. and instead you attribute motivations to the study’s authors that you can’t possibly know – that they are only studying this subject to bulster their materialist ideology.

    It seems like you are interpreting the facts to fit into a narrative pattern that you already hold a prior belief in – but is this narrative pattern real or perceived?

    Ask yourself this, is there a way cognitive scientists could – in good faith – study human pattern recognition behaviour without you assuming they are only doing so to support their materialist ideology? In what way would that look different to the nefarious motives you are attributing in this case?

    Or have you decided as a priori that any such research must inherently be motivated by materialist ideology?

  16. Robneyon 23 Oct 2017 at 7:46 pm

    “We “know” that all supernatural beliefs are irrational because the philosophy of materialism says they are”

    This isn’t true is it?

    Generally, people who broadly hold materialist views don’t evaluate truth claims based on their adherence to an ideological belief – because to do so would be antithetical to the system of thought from which materialism is derived.

    Belief in the supernatural is irrational to the extent that any belief in unfalsifiable propositions with zero supporting evidence is irrational.

  17. hardnoseon 23 Oct 2017 at 7:47 pm

    Pattern recognition can go wrong. Anything can go wrong, nothing in this world is perfect.

    When dealing with unknowns, some people are misled by their own pattern-matching. Others are able to stop and say “We don’t really know.”

    With something like 9/11, for example, there are many details that can be stitched together all kinds of ways. No one can possibly know exactly what happened. Real skeptics can refrain from connecting all the dots in to make a coherent story. People with a strong need for certainty cannot refrain, so they generate myths.

    Religions do this. No one can possibly know why we are here or how it all happened. People like to feel they know, so they generate and believe in myths.

    Atheists do this also, and they have their own myths.

    This blog, and the research mentioned in this post, follows the atheist mythology. The research authors specifically state that “supernatural” belief are irrational. Yes, from the perspective of an atheist, they are.

  18. Robneyon 23 Oct 2017 at 8:06 pm

    In a complex world, there is very little we can know without absolute certainty, perhaps we are all brains in a jar and the material universe is a simulation. But we can make inferences, and probabilistic conclusions based on what we do know and certain axiomatic assumptions (e.g that reality is real, that other people our experience the same consciousness as ourselves etc).

    So regarding 9/11 as an example, we can’t as individuals know with absolute certainty what happened, but some conclusions are more probable than others and some are so implausible that they cross the line into irrational belief.

  19. chikoppion 23 Oct 2017 at 10:13 pm

    [hardnose] This blog, and the research mentioned in this post, follows the atheist mythology. The research authors specifically state that supernatural” belief are irrational. Yes, from the perspective of an atheist, they are.

    Poorly considered ad hominem.

    “Atheism” is the rejection of “theism.” One can hold belief in the supernatural without being a theist. There are many metaphysical/philosophical positions that do not assume a deity or deities that do nonetheless incorporate (or at least entertain) “supernatural” components.

    This is such a utterly predictable response from you. You don’t like the implications of the evidence so go in searching of some label with which to slur the messenger (which you never fail to misconstrue).

    [chikoppi] They measured mathematical (non-ideological) pattern seeking and agreement with completely fictitious conspiracy theories as well. Neither of which have anything to do with “philosophy” or “materialism” or “elitism” or any of the other straw men you so depend upon.

    Is that evidence that the researches are biased against demonstrably false statistics and blatant fabrications? No wonder you don’t like them.

  20. Willyon 23 Oct 2017 at 10:15 pm

    Hey hardnose: Tell us what “myths” atheists believe? Tell why we don’t know what happened on 9/11. Please. My understanding is that 19 Islamic fundamentalists (plus “support” folks) were responsible.

    You are one sad mo-fo. Really.

  21. JimVon 24 Oct 2017 at 12:45 am

    One of my personal-favorite conspiracy hunches is that the whole Moses story must have been made up, since it has so many inconsistencies:

    1) The KJ version says that at one point during the plagues, Pharaoh was ready to let the Israelis go, but the Lord hardened the Pharaoh’s heart so as to get the chance to show off a few more plagues. What?

    2) Blood had to be painted on the doorways of the Israelis so the Angel of Death would know not to take their first-born sons. Doesn’t sound very omniscient of the Lord Administration – more like what purely human, materialistic agency would require.

    3) When the Red Sea was parted, why was no mention made of waist-deep mud and wreckage being parted also, so the Israelis could cross? And how steep were the banks – were steps created in them? It is almost like whoever first reported the story had never seen a sea bottom.

    4) After seeing 10 plagues and the Red Sea parted, 30-40% of the Israelis decided they could make a better god by melting some trinkets and casting a Golden Calf, with no fear of being struck by lightning for their ingratitude.

    5) After receiving 10 commandments, including “Thou shalt not murder”, Moses stands by if not incites as his followers murder the Golden Calf worshipers.

    6) It took a week or so for the Lord to carve the commandments into stone. What was the technology of the time (pyramids – stone-carving)? Wouldn’t it have been better to etch the commandments into titanium plate, for permanence?

    7) It takes the Israelis many years to cross the Sinai, later crossed by Lawrence of Arabia on foot in a couple days.

    Plus I understand there is no archaeological evidence that the Egyptians ever had a large number of Israeli slaves.

    The simple explanation for this and most stories of the supernatural is that they were made up or hallucinated. (I personally know of two people who claim, no doubt sincerely, that they have seen and talked to the Christian god. Unfortunately, both suffer from bi-polarism and refuse to take medication. One threw away his glasses years ago in the belief that Jesus would cure his near-sightedness, as promised by the Bible in his interpretation. No luck so far. These people deserve and have my strong sympathy. When your own brain lies to you how can you find truth?)

  22. chikoppion 24 Oct 2017 at 2:00 am

    [JimV] The simple explanation for this and most stories of the supernatural is that they were made up or hallucinated. (I personally know of two people who claim, no doubt sincerely, that they have seen and talked to the Christian god. Unfortunately, both suffer from bi-polarism and refuse to take medication. One threw away his glasses years ago in the belief that Jesus would cure his near-sightedness, as promised by the Bible in his interpretation. No luck so far. These people deserve and have my strong sympathy. When your own brain lies to you how can you find truth?)

    Although the broad presentation of the bicameral mind hypothesis has largely been rejected I find it interesting that there are demonstrable neurological structures that correlate to regions in different hemispheres processing parallel yet distinct cognitive functions.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

    It is now known that sense of agency is closely connected with lateralization. The left parietal lobe is active when visualizing actions in the first person, while the right parietal lobe is active for actions in the third person. Additionally, Wernicke’s area processes the literal meaning of language, while the homologous region in the right hemisphere processes the intent of a speaker. It has been found that people with damage to the right inferior parietal cortex experience alien hand syndrome, as do people who have had a corpus callosotomy. This reverses the relationship between the right and left hemispheres posited by bicameralism: it is the left hemisphere that “speaks” and the right hemisphere that is responsible for self-awareness.

    Neuroscientist Michael Persinger, who co-invented the God helmet in the 1980s, believes that his invention may induce mystical experiences by having the separate right hemisphere consciousness intrude into the awareness of the normally-dominant left hemisphere.

  23. hardnoseon 24 Oct 2017 at 11:19 am

    ‘“Atheism” is the rejection of “theism.” One can hold belief in the supernatural without being a theist. There are many metaphysical/philosophical positions that do not assume a deity or deities that do nonetheless incorporate (or at least entertain) “supernatural” components.”‘

    Then you can call it “materialism” instead. Almost everyone at this blogs thinks supernatural experiences are hallucinations or delusions. Anyone who disagrees is called a troll.

    I think it’s odd that you can accept ideas from physics like parallel universes and higher-order dimensions, yet you deny the possibility of other “supernatural” worlds.

  24. hardnoseon 24 Oct 2017 at 11:27 am

    The Old Testament is a written record of a culture’s oral tradition, and the oral tradition was probably recited for centuries before writing began. Considering how long this game of “telephone” went on, it is not surprising there are inconsistencies and contradictions.

    But that doesn’t necessarily mean all supernatural events in the bible were made up. Every human culture that has been studied had supernatural beliefs, and there were members of the culture who claimed to experience other worlds, and to communicate with spirits.

    Of course you can say all that comes from human nature’s need to explain, or the human tendency to hallucinate or be crazy. Yes of course you can say all that, but you have no scientific reason for saying it. We can also say it’s because there are other worlds — maybe on higher-order dimensional planes, or in parallel universes, or whatever crazy things we don’t yet understand.

  25. BBBlueon 24 Oct 2017 at 12:11 pm

    Yes of course you can say all that, but you have no scientific reason for saying it.

    Based on the understanding of the world we do have, we may not be able to rule out all possibilities, but we can certainly comment on what is more likely.

    “which is more likely, that the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?” -Hitchens.

  26. chikoppion 24 Oct 2017 at 12:38 pm

    [hardnose] I think it’s odd that you can accept ideas from physics like parallel universes and higher-order dimensions, yet you deny the possibility of other “supernatural” worlds.

    There’s no incongruence whatsoever.

    First, there’s a difference between “accepting” an idea and “entertaining” an idea. I’m willing to entertain ideas from theoretical physics, but I won’t “accept” them without sufficient evidence.

    Second, before I can even entertain the idea of the “supernatural” someone will have to define what it is. As far as I can tell, “supernatural” is a label for an idea unsupported by evidence and completely lacking any plausible mechanism consistent with properties of the known universe. In other words, an untestable assertion drawn from fantasy.

    We have evidence that neurological (physical) conditions provoke experiential hallucinations. We have no evidence for sources of “supernatural” causation. You do the math.

  27. Kabboron 24 Oct 2017 at 1:10 pm

    “Every human culture that has been studied had supernatural beliefs, and there were members of the culture who claimed to experience other worlds, and to communicate with spirits.”

    Surprise! Every human culture has people that have thoughts and imaginations. What a world we live in. I have a four year old daughter that routinely makes things up that are supernatural and pretends that they are real just for the fun of it. That humans do this in other places and other times is not exactly enticing evidence of anything. Anything at all. When people in authority do it, it becomes accepted unless you have groups or processes that counter the nonsense.

  28. bachfiendon 24 Oct 2017 at 4:33 pm

    Hardnose,

    ‘The Old Testament is a written record of a culture’s oral tradition, and the oral tradition was probably recited for centuries before writing began. Considering how long this game of ‘telephone’ went on, it is not surprising that there are inconsistencies and contradictions’.

    Don’t you just mean the first 5 books of the OT, particularly Genesis and Exodus? Many of the other books of the OT were purported to be histories, written at around the time when the events were supposed to have occurred (such as the Babylonian exile) or prophesies of the bad things that would happen to the Hebrews if they didn’t reform, at times when the Hebrews were literate.

    Anyway. I’m still waiting for your ‘atheist myths.’

  29. bhobon 31 Oct 2017 at 2:39 pm

    Steve,
    A few typos but otherwise a great summary to an important and informative study.
    “…there Iraq at WMD prior to the war,….” suggest: THAT Iraq HAD WMD
    “…again, education is science …” although that i agree with the statement that ‘Education is Science’ I suggest: education IN science
    Thank you,

    -m

  30. BillyJoe7on 31 Oct 2017 at 4:24 pm

    bhob,

    We don’t generally bother about correcting typos in a blog post.
    Thank you 🙂

    Also, you put your correction in the wrong thread 😀

  31. bhobon 01 Nov 2017 at 5:01 pm

    BillyJoe7,
    Sorry, mea culpa, too many tabs open.
    Thank you,
    -m

  32. BillyJoe7on 02 Nov 2017 at 5:51 am

    bhob,

    Well, at least you didn’t jump to the conclusion that you’d been censored in the other thread. 😉

  33. Gabor Hraskoon 14 Nov 2017 at 1:46 pm

    I did not really get the 3rd test. One hypothesis is “that perception of patterns in general—regardless if they are real or illusory—predicts stronger irrational beliefs”. However, it seems that in this test they had not tested if pattern recognition results PREDICTS irrational beliefs, but if pattern recognition exercise EFFECTS irrational belief claims. Do I misunderstand something?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.