Scientific Study Reveals Conspiracy Theorists The Most Sane Of All!

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: OrionsGem

Oh but I did. If you can point out an instance where in the study they mentioned conspiracy theorists being more sane than conventionalists I would like to see it. There's a very good chance that I missed it, it was a rather dry read.

I erased it because for a brief moment I thought that the source wasn't Natural News and didn't want to derail the thread or be rude.

For anyone wondering, I linked to the original article and said that I had a hard time trusting anything from Natural News, but that when I had time I would read the study (paraphrased).

So using your logic, you distrust, and simply do not believe an official study (US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health), because it was picked up by a source you deem bogus?

Again why not focus on the study presented, instead of screaming hoax, simply due to article about the study being published on a less than legitimate website?

Thats the same thing as a story about the ebola outbreak being presented in the national enquirer, and thinking that Ebola was a giant hoax, simply because it was printed in that newspaper.

You seem to be adept at picking apart a post word by word and taking some things too literally, leading to a lengthy, drawn out and exhausting conversation that is not the least pleasant. So I most likely will not be entertaining any nit pick or pick nit responses.

Regards,
OG

a reply to: OrionsGem

The study doesn't make the same claims as the author of the article that you posted.

I'm fine with the study. As much as I can be with using internet comments as research. I don't think the study is a hoax.

The author cherry picked parts of the study and made the assertion that conspiracy theorists are more sane than those who don't believe in conspiracies. That was never even vaguely alluded to in the study.

Thats the same thing as a story about the ebola outbreak being presented in the national enquirer, and thinking that Ebola was a giant hoax, simply because it was printed in that newspaper.

No, it's reading the National Enquirer, then actually reading a study they quoted and realizing the Enquirer article was full of it.

I dislike Alex Jones, dislike Icke, dislike Before It's News but if they present something and it's legitimate I don't care about the source. Do I usually assume they will try to manipulate data to fit their agenda? Yes. Are they always wrong? Not at all.

I feel like you're taking my pointing out that the author is making baseless claims as a personal attack or something. That's not at all my intent. I'm just trying to point out that after reading the study, and what the author of the article claimed he seems to be full of it. I appreciate your posting this information, and simply have a differing opinion as to the validity of the claims presented by the author of the article on Natural News.

originally posted by: rickymouse
What a bummer. Now they are saying that I am sane? I don't want to be considered normal, that is so boring.

hmmmm, I don't know what I think of this either.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Well to be fair no one is saying normal. Embrace your weirdness!

I love this sentence:

originally posted by: OrionsGem
Researchers — psychologists and social scientists, mostly — in the U.S. and United Kingdom say data indicate that, contrary to those mainstream media stereotypes, “conspiracy theorists” appear to be more sane than people who accept official versions of controversial and contested events.

How much of a gnostic do you have to be to see the silliness of this statement?

This reminds me of when I read the following in the book The Sane Society by Erich Fromm:

The insane person has lost contact with the world; he has withdrawn into himself; he cannot experience reality, either physical or human reality as it is, but only as formed and determined by his own inner processes.

These "scientists" that have found the objective definition of reality, does anyone have their email address? I'd like to have a chat with them.

If anything, the statement talked about in the OP ought to make the real truth seeker see what a politicized quagmire science often is. Not all that different from how some say religious ritual is institutionalized Obsessive Compulsive Disorder designed to make a world full of uncertainty feel certain. Robert Sapolsky talks about it. He also talks about how "the lunatic fringe" of psychiatry in the sixties and seventies thought schizophrenia might not be all that bad, but rather it might be to be sane in an insane world, and how he then in an agitated manner says this was sick and destructive.

I have thought for a long time that spirituality and emotional intelligence are inversely related. Society requires groupthink and deception. If sanity is conformity to society or adaptability to society then spiritual initiation always is the other side of the coin of madness.

The statement in the OP is probably very similar to what Above Top Secret very often is; you take the madness and make it comfortable friday evening family entertainment. Well, sorry to burst some people's bubble, but it's no longer truth seeking when it is socially accepted.

a reply to: OrionsGem

I think it's common knowledge for us that we know we are not what they make us out to be, but just people that challenge the status quo and want to understand all the facts. So we dig and dig and dig more, then we understand and compare ideas that make sense. Everyone else just takes it at face value.

originally posted by: NiZZiM
a reply to: OrionsGem

I think it's common knowledge for us that we know we are not what they make us out to be, but just people that challenge the status quo and want to understand all the facts. So we dig and dig and dig more, then we understand and compare ideas that make sense. Everyone else just takes it at face value.

You've got to wonder though; when there is a sense of community among people that call themselves truth seekers, isn't it possible that there is just another degree of groupthink involved?

Gnostics didn't just get burned at the stake in the Dark Ages.

There is a history of the world of which most people are unaware. It is encapsulated in the phrase, “History is written by the victors.” What about those who lost? Their stories are lost in the tales of the winners. They are notes in the margin. They are “Other”. Often, little is known about them beyond the slanders and libels their successful enemies levelled at them. History doesn’t record their voices. Often, they left no written documents, or at least none that survived the destruction wrought by their enemies. This lost history doesn’t concern wars between great nations or famous battles involving powerful kings or the most skilled generals. Instead, it is a struggle of the powerless against the powerful, of minorities against majorities, outsiders versus insiders, oppressed against the oppressors, have-nots against haves, those with nothing against those with everything, the margins of society versus the establishment. In the vast majority of cases, the establishment is triumphant. Often, the minorities - the heretics, the rebels, the revolutionaries, the members of the resistance, the freedom fighters, those leading alternative lives, the anti-establishment, those who won’t bow to tyrants - are destroyed and exterminated. They are usually labelled mad, evil and dangerous and their terrible fate is held up as a warning to those who might follow the same path. “Do not be like them or you will suffer the same consequences,” is the message.

source: armageddonconspiracy.co.uk...

My conclusion is that there is no such thing as a sane conspiracy theorist, an intelligent, visionary, perceptive conspiracy theorist yes, but sane no.

Fear is enlightenment.

a reply to: Domo1

I don't think many people read studies anymore. It is sometimes hard to get them to read past headlines.

You and I know the study doesn't say anything close to what the article from NN says it does but good luck with getting people to read that for themselves.


Oh well...its kinda funny.

If this study means I will not get laughed at and ridiculed anymore, I want no part in it (a link would be nice). There is a measure of satisfaction in knowing I did my research, came to my own conclusions, and am thought silly, insane, or inferior in intelligence. It reminds me of both how I play chess and how I compete in martial arts and all other things - allow the other guy to think I am as dumb as dirt, get underestimated, and win.

Yup, seems right to me. The term conspiracy theorist has been stigmatized for the sole purpose of stopping folk asking questions and thinking for themselves. Makes you wonder why there has been such a smear campaign against those who believe in alien visitation now doesn't it.

originally posted by: CallYourBluff
Yup, seems right to me. The term conspiracy theorist has been stigmatized for the sole purpose of stopping folk asking questions and thinking for themselves. Makes you wonder why there has been such a smear campaign against those who believe in alien visitation now doesn't it.

Conspiracy theorist / Thruth demonstrators

Once on the other side of the mirror ...

Interesting find. My regret as a conspiracy believer is that I am lumped in with loonies who believe in the absolutely bizarre. Sometimes I feel idiot personas like Alex Jones - the kosher conspiracy theorist, are created to have more rational conspiracy theorists discredited by association.

Sit back. Relax. Everything is under control.

originally posted by: rickymouse
What a bummer. Now they are saying that I am sane? I don't want to be considered normal, that is so boring.

Given that the majority of people accept the OS BS most of the time... we are in the minority... that makes us abnormaly sane!

I would say it has a lot to do with Intelligence level. And I would love to find out the average IQ of say our membership.

Korg.

originally posted by: skunkape23
Sit back. Relax. Everything is under control.

I didn't want to stall the thread on that good word ...
It's actually quite a change when you consider the situation three weeks ago :

David Cameron Says Non-Violent Conspiracy Theorists Are Just As Dangerous As ISIS.

a reply to: OrionsGem

Now that I'm not at work, I decided to have a closer look at this study and its apparent findings.

It seems im right, indirectly, I proposed that this was a deliberate attempt at pointing out conspiracy theorists compulsion for confirmation bias, turns out it was an accidental attempt at it..

Our recently published Frontiers study on online communication, “What about Building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, has been the subject of some chatter on the Internet – but not quite in the way I had hoped. A story by Kevin Barrett on PressTV.ir has interpreted the study as showing that conspiracists are “more sane” than conventionalists, and, given that this is an appealing headline for long-suffering conspiracists, has been copy-pasted around the Internet in a highly uncritical fashion.

Read the rest at his blog:

conspiracypsychology.com...

Woops!

Sure, you're sane..and you're on the ball too!

a reply to: Grimpachi

You and I know the study doesn't say anything close to what the article from NN says it does but good luck with getting people to read that for themselves.

It's sad. The thread and article get called out on the first page but no one is going to take the time to actually read the study.

a reply to: Domo1

An example of truth seeking at its finest?.

Like I said its funny.

The stupidest responses in this thread is actually the ones dismissing that conspiracy theorists are more sane.

We know who we are, we know how we feel, we percieve our critical reasoning...don't believe haters!