What choices do we have in the creation of our own behavior and beliefs? Which cultural, biological, logic systems have informed the individual to believe what they do?

As such, when a group is created on an ideal that closes them off to internal/external critique and loops back into itself, a reasoning process still occurs within it. But the verification, the consensus of that reasoning is group determined. It will only regard it’s own particular “truth” as truth. When a community only self-identifies, they only check their reasoning against others like themselves. The self-interest of the group depends upon agreeing with the others, or the “leaders” claims of whatever. They cannot doubt, dissent, or voice skepticism as the group will select against those that do so. Our evolutionary experience has shown that outcasts do not survive.

When agreeing with whatever the group or leader describes as truth is the sole criteria for group membership, it is essentially a trap for minds. As once you have been informed by their “reasoning” and have seen their “truth” it becomes a self-interested process to quiet your own dissent, skepticism, and doubt.

That is at least how the biological and cultural systems that have informed the view-point that I am, sees it.

How is today’s world more complicated than the one our “monkey brains” evolved in as far as “being able to predict at least the basic patterns and rhythms of the world”?

Also, I don’t see these people in France as trying to understand and control their world. It seems to me they’re not trying to understand anything at all, and that their activities are more akin to operating by those “emotional desires and needs” you talk about. They apparently are really hoping that there will be some big transformation, or they are very afraid, and hoping that by gathering there they will save themselves. They are expecting someone ELSE to control their world!

Pointing out the nuttiness of these types of groups of people does little to support the “advantage of the skeptical world view”. It supports the common sense world view.
Well, maybe that’s what skepticism is. Never mind.
But take heart, I think in this case most of the world is of the skeptical viewpoint.

It only gains traction if it has an audience,those who because they lack a career in critical thinking are constantly looking to find a new psyhic-cognitive status quo

“I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

This is how I overcame panic attacks. It was my own solution, though, so it’s strange to see it written down here by someone else who obviously found the same solution. The second sentence especially. Permitting it to pass over and through you – as in looking at yourself from a sort of third person perspective – really helped to tame the monster.

Not quite the same, but it strikes me as kind of similar in a vague way to what I do for the times I have to deal with medically-related pain, like needles. I’m not exactly “afraid” (as long as I don’t have to watch it being done), but it takes a bit of nerve to prepare for it. What I found useful for dealing with the prospect of an imminent sharp pain is “putting it in the past tense.” It’s going to be over quickly, so I might as well think about it as if it’s over, instead of a looming experience that’s going to happen any second now.

I still have trouble not preemptively blinking with the gizmo at my eye doctor’s lab that blasts a puff of air in my eyes, though. That one’s probably more hardwired.
—
On the main topic, it really feels strange to think about what “newage” beliefs are, since they’re typically a grab bag from multiple sources, and a lot are probably contradictory (Did aliens build the pyramids, or did psychokinetic Egyptians?). But in a way, that’s probably how the now-mainstream religions got started. Newagers are probably a lot looser because they don’t yet have organized counsels and inquisitions to enforce a particular canon. The mainstream religions probably feel more “solid” because they’ve been around so long and allegedly have a single source document (canonized from multiple sources plus popular “fanon”).

At the moment, it’s something of a cultural “strength” of newageism to lack a canon, since a lot of newagers are people who became dissatisfied with dogmatic religions or having their wishful thinking shot down by cold, hard facts about reality that have been demonstrated by science. The lack of a central dogma gives them a lot more socially acceptable wiggle room for cherrypicking among the various beliefs.

I’m not sure if this is what you meant, but I think it has less to do with the ability to see patterns and more to do with thinking about apparent patterns with the proper perspective. What I mean is that a skeptic can see these apparent patterns, but realize that one can find apparent patterns in otherwise random events. In other words, I don’t conspiracy thinkers as a group are better at finding that cat in that picture that you link to, but they are sure its there

Not much I can say to them except how is that millennium bug working out for you?

I really wish people would stop using this.

The millenium “bug” got fixed. That’s why not much happened. And even if it had “happened” big style, then a load of computers would have shown the wrong date and messed up some financial transactions. It was hardly the 2nd coming of christ.

There was hysteria about it because some people will get hysterical when the internet is down for half an hour.

Here’s what I think would be an interesting thing to know (study). What if a our ability to see patterns falls along a scale. With people who are just more naturally skeptical and less likely to attribute special patterns or even see special patterns on one end. And on the other end are the folks who see them in everything and live their life reveling in conspiracy theories.

I have no evidence for this. But it would be an interesting way to explain why some folks never seem to have any skepticism and others do.