Scientific Study Reveals Conspiracy Theorists The Most Sane Of All!

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
With the way that conspiracy theorists tend to be so dogmatic with their "theories", I'd say that they are just as prone to being indoctrinated as the sheeple they are always going on about. Just because you disagree with the official story, doesn't automatically make you a critical thinker. So many conspiracy theorists fail to make that connection.

Totally, completely, and wholeheartedly disagree with your statement, but I do thank you for your opinion.

OG

Of course you do...which proves his point

There was no point. Just an opinion.

Thanks, play again.

OG

Opinions have points. He made one.

I don't need to play again. If you bothered to look a little further up - I posted an actual study about conspiracy theorists which you either willfully ignored or accidentally missed.

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
With the way that conspiracy theorists tend to be so dogmatic with their "theories", I'd say that they are just as prone to being indoctrinated as the sheeple they are always going on about. Just because you disagree with the official story, doesn't automatically make you a critical thinker. So many conspiracy theorists fail to make that connection.

Totally, completely, and wholeheartedly disagree with your statement, but I do thank you for your opinion.

OG

OG

Of course you do...which proves his point

There was no point. Just an opinion.

Thanks, play again.

OG

Opinions have points. He made one.

I don't need to play again. If you bothered to look a little further up - I posted an actual study about conspiracy theorists which you either willfully ignored or accidentally missed.

Nope, I didn't ignore it, I just choose not to entertain ignorance.

OG

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
With the way that conspiracy theorists tend to be so dogmatic with their "theories", I'd say that they are just as prone to being indoctrinated as the sheeple they are always going on about. Just because you disagree with the official story, doesn't automatically make you a critical thinker. So many conspiracy theorists fail to make that connection.

Totally, completely, and wholeheartedly disagree with your statement, but I do thank you for your opinion.

OG

OG

Of course you do...which proves his point

There was no point. Just an opinion.

Thanks, play again.

OG

Opinions have points. He made one.

I don't need to play again. If you bothered to look a little further up - I posted an actual study about conspiracy theorists which you either willfully ignored or accidentally missed.

Nope, I didn't ignore it, I just choose not to entertain ignorance.

OG

annnd....point proven once again

conspiracy theorists are literally out of control










control: do it.

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
With the way that conspiracy theorists tend to be so dogmatic with their "theories", I'd say that they are just as prone to being indoctrinated as the sheeple they are always going on about. Just because you disagree with the official story, doesn't automatically make you a critical thinker. So many conspiracy theorists fail to make that connection.

Totally, completely, and wholeheartedly disagree with your statement, but I do thank you for your opinion.

OG

Are you going to elaborate on why you disagree with it or are we just playing the "Nuh huh, you're wrong!" game? I certainly DO have a point and I certainly can elaborate on it if you need me too, but first you need to elaborate on your disagreement. You did nothing to move the conversation forward with your response to me. In fact, I'd say that you may have even proved my point. I'm wrong, just because. That's NOT critical thinking.

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
With the way that conspiracy theorists tend to be so dogmatic with their "theories", I'd say that they are just as prone to being indoctrinated as the sheeple they are always going on about. Just because you disagree with the official story, doesn't automatically make you a critical thinker. So many conspiracy theorists fail to make that connection.

Totally, completely, and wholeheartedly disagree with your statement, but I do thank you for your opinion.

OG

OG

Of course you do...which proves his point

There was no point. Just an opinion.

Thanks, play again.

OG

Opinions have points. He made one.

I don't need to play again. If you bothered to look a little further up - I posted an actual study about conspiracy theorists which you either willfully ignored or accidentally missed.

Nope, I didn't ignore it, I just choose not to entertain ignorance.

OG

annnd....point proven once again

LOL what point exactly? Im not sure your serving up anything of substance here....you are aware that your posting on a conspiracy website, surrounded by conspiracy theorists?

I can reply to your one liners all day long, its not a problem bud.

OG

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
With the way that conspiracy theorists tend to be so dogmatic with their "theories", I'd say that they are just as prone to being indoctrinated as the sheeple they are always going on about. Just because you disagree with the official story, doesn't automatically make you a critical thinker. So many conspiracy theorists fail to make that connection.

Totally, completely, and wholeheartedly disagree with your statement, but I do thank you for your opinion.

OG

Are you going to elaborate on why you disagree with it or are we just playing the "Nuh huh, you're wrong!" game? I certainly DO have a point and I certainly can elaborate on it if you need me too, but first you need to elaborate on your disagreement. You did nothing to move the conversation forward with your response to me. In fact, I'd say that you may have even proved my point. I'm wrong, just because. That's NOT critical thinking.

I disagree with your statement. You are painting ALL conspiracy theorists with the same brush, and that is not an accurate picture that your painting.

OG

S&F'd & LOL'd (wry smile)

but the 1st response nailed it
normal = ordinary "boring"

..and that's what's been happening to my beloved tinfoil hat scene for the last few years
..it's all gone mainstream

until finally the day arrives, when we'll have a previously unknown faction arise in this world, and they'll be claiming to have slain the many headed hydra and finally liberated humanity..

but it will all be a lie.. kinda like that c3po pic back there

a reply to: OrionsGem

Ah I see now. You misread my statement or misunderstood it. Let me try again.

Conspiracy theorists make the same mistakes as people who trust the official explanation by trusting some random nobodies' explanation as the valid hypothesis and then tend to become very dogmatic with that view. This is because conspiracy theorists are humans just like the ones who trust the official story and are subject to the same flaws and failings. It is very apparent on these forums. It is also called a confirmation bias and is NOT the mark of a critical thinker.

The only people I would say that apply critical thinking to a story, any story, are the skeptics. The ones who distrust ANY story, official or otherwise. But even they are subject to human failings (some may distrust most stories but favor their own pet story or distrust a story despite overwhelming evidence saying that it is probably correct).

Nothing is as it seems and humans lie. Those are the only two constants you should use when applying critical thought to a story. For instance the only thing that is probably right about the 9/11 conspiracy that truthers say is that the government isn't telling the truth. That may mean that some of the official story is true (maybe the hijackers WERE middle eastern terrorists), but there ARE most likely lies mixed in with that story. When you start jumping the gun and saying things like: the government was in on it or the planes were holograms or other nonsense, then you are applying a confirmation bias in light of no evidence to support your claims. In that sense, you are just as deluded as the people accepting the official story. That ISN'T critical thought. It's just substituting one lie for another lie that makes you feel better.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OrionsGem

Ah I see now. You misread my statement or misunderstood it. Let me try again.

Conspiracy theorists make the same mistakes as people who trust the official explanation by trusting some random nobodies' explanation as the valid hypothesis and then tend to become very dogmatic with that view. This is because conspiracy theorists are humans just like the ones who trust the official story and are subject to the same flaws and failings. It is very apparent on these forums. It is also called a confirmation bias and is NOT the mark of a critical thinker.

The only people I would say that apply critical thinking to a story, any story, are the skeptics. The ones who distrust ANY story, official or otherwise. But even they are subject to human failings (some may distrust most stories but favor their own pet story or distrust a story despite overwhelming evidence saying that it is probably correct).

Nothing is as it seems and humans lie. Those are the only two constants you should use when applying critical thought to a story. For instance the only thing that is probably right about the 9/11 conspiracy that truthers say is that the government isn't telling the truth. That may mean that some of the official story is true (maybe the hijackers WERE middle eastern terrorists), but there ARE most likely lies mixed in with that story. When you start jumping the gun and saying things like: the government was in on it or the planes were holograms or other nonsense, then you are applying a confirmation bias in light of no evidence to support your claims. In that sense, you are just as deluded as the people accepting the official story. That ISN'T critical thought. It's just substituting one lie for another lie that makes you feel better.

Whoa who ever said that conspiracy theorists believe everything they hear? Why cant a CT be a skeptic at the same time?

As far as your comparing the theory that the govt was in on 911 is the same as the holographic plane theory thats just crazy!


There is no evidence that the govt was in on 911? ARE YOU JOKING>>>?

OG

originally posted by: OrionsGem
Whoa who ever said that conspiracy theorists believe everything they hear? Why cant a CT be a skeptic at the same time?

Conspiracy theorist means that they believe in an alternate theory to the mainstream theory. This is the case because a "theorist" is someone who theorizes something, and with the "conspiracy" adjective before it, it means a person who theorizes conspiracies. A skeptic distrusts ALL theories. Maybe learn your terminology.

As far as your comparing the theory that the govt was in on 911 is the same as the holographic plane theory thats just crazy!

I only compared them in that there is just as much evidence for either of them to be true, none. So whether you jump to the more crazy sounding "holographic plane" theory or just go with the standard "the government was in on it" theory, you are subscribing to a theory with no evidence to support it. That is a confirmation bias.

There is no evidence that the govt was in on 911? ARE YOU JOKING>>>?

OG

No, I'm not joking. The only point I agree with truthers on is that we don't have the full truth with the official story. All other explanations require a confirmation bias. And to preempt you before you post a bunch of "evidence" confirming that the government was in on 9/11, I want you to go back and try to look at the evidence with the mindset that MAYBE the government wasn't in on it and see if the evidence still holds up. THAT is how you shake a confirmation bias and how you ACTUALLY critically think. But to look at some flimsy evidence then say that it is undeniable proof that the government caused 9/11, is dishonest and just as closed minded as the ones who accept the official story as gospel.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
posts

Don't know if I read all your posts, but I agree with most of what you said.

What's your ideas about that "conspiratorial intuition" I talked about? Personally I think it might be pretty much the quality of what you call a skeptic, you just have a sense that things aren't what they appear to be. The so-called skeptics I have encountered do not seem to fit your description. A lot of them seem to be quite hostile and fearful, trying to keep people away from conspiracy theories, not all that different a mentality from the placard holding people and amateur doomsday prophets. Usually they would fit the description of a troll. For that reason they might have been working for some organization with a mission to subvert discussions. But yeah, I agree with your basic premise and I find myself being quite fed up with so-called truthers and the alternative media a lot of times. However I keep coming back because there are after all some ideas that aren't seen elsewhere. I just see it as one source of information of many, this so-called truth movement and related media. I also find the whole thing useful in that a lot of times I look at what people label wrong, evil, what they oppose, are annoyed with etc. and then I try to look into that more and understand the counterpart. Lately that's really the primary function the so-called truth movement serves for me.

a reply to: introspectionist

Well in this post, I said:

The only people I would say that apply critical thinking to a story, any story, are the skeptics. The ones who distrust ANY story, official or otherwise. But even they are subject to human failings (some may distrust most stories but favor their own pet story or distrust a story despite overwhelming evidence saying that it is probably correct).

So I would agree with you. Even skeptics can become dogmatic with their beliefs. Critical thought requires you to let go of everything you "know" is true and just look at the evidence and the conclusion it presents.

So now we're declared scientifically sane .. All we have to wait for now is that the Pope is going to declare us holy !!!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: introspectionist

Well in this post, I said:

The only people I would say that apply critical thinking to a story, any story, are the skeptics. The ones who distrust ANY story, official or otherwise. But even they are subject to human failings (some may distrust most stories but favor their own pet story or distrust a story despite overwhelming evidence saying that it is probably correct).

So I would agree with you. Even skeptics can become dogmatic with their beliefs. Critical thought requires you to let go of everything you "know" is true and just look at the evidence and the conclusion it presents.

Yeah, it's an interesting philosophical subject though, that one could have a long discussion about.

I think that truth seeking is logic and information, but it's also other things. It's introspection, becoming aware of your own beliefs, fears etc. So meditation is about as important as reading and reflection I'd say.

You were quick to reply. I was going to edit to add a bit but I'll add it below instead:

I personally work on a hypothesis regarding emotional intelligence. I think that emotional intelligence is basically conformity, it is the basis of groupthink. A real truth seeker must not be afraid of ostracization, or being labelled stupid, wrong, or insane, not even within a community of people who call themselves truth seekers. Therefore, clinging onto a sense of community anywhere is limiting to a truth seeker. Basically, only a loner can be a real truth seeker. All others are limited by the groupthink, i.e. they are limited in their seeking by their fear of ostracization and loneliness. A real truth seeker must be a total outsider, totally alienated, like a free-floating atom in space. That's my view currently.

a reply to: introspectionist

Yes I would agree 100% with your synopsis of a real truth seeker. Conforming to group think creates confirmation bias which is the ultimate bane to a truth seeker.

The only thing I find sad is that all the idiots rule the world and know all secrecy . And we sane conspiracy thinkers still have to fight for our sanity proving they're wrong and never be rewarded with the truth how sick is that anyway?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: introspectionist

Yes I would agree 100% with your synopsis of a real truth seeker. Conforming to group think creates confirmation bias which is the ultimate bane to a truth seeker.

Yeah, and most likely that even includes your own parents and siblings. Something very few, if any, people who love their parents will sacrifice. Which is why I'm inclined to believe that you pretty much have to be mentally disordered to be a real truth seeker, no matter how much the neurotypicals are going to complain and disagree.

Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me."

a reply to: introspectionist

Well I try to think like that, but I tend to keep my opinions to myself about things, especially with my mother. She is a VERY emotional thinker which blinds her to rationality quite regularly. I get tired of being looked at weirdly. Not to mention, most people don't want to hear about these things. So, to keep the peace, I just keep my opinions on truth to myself and go about my days.

originally posted by: 0bserver1
The only thing I find sad is that all the idiots rule the world and know all secrecy . And we sane conspiracy thinkers still have to fight for our sanity proving they're wrong and never be rewarded with the truth how sick is that anyway?

That attitude, or something similar, is one of the main things I object to with the truth movement. When you label something as wrong or evil, and you work from that premise, you are working with confirmation bias. Instead of calling the elite wrong and evil all the time, why doesn't anyone ever think of the idea to be humble and think that perhaps one doesn't know everything? But at the same time I can see how fear, cynicism, pessimism or a form of resistance can serve to gain enlightenment. It is paradoxical. The opposite of being cynical might be to be optimistic, undoubting, creduluous, unsuspecting, gullible, politically correct, or as I think personally, having high emotional intelligence. This is a very interesting subject to me that I can't quite get my head around. On the one hand, cynicism, paranoia and pessimism appear to be necessary for enlightenment. On the other hand it seems to also sometimes be blocking and creating confirmation bias. And the other side, the politically correct, those with high emotional intelligence, are quite paradoxical too. While they are always so tolerant because they don't want to offend anyone, and want to offend as few as possible and as little as possible, they are very narrow minded, closed minded, and paradoxically can be very intolerant of those who do not conform to the group think. As Henrik on Red Ice put it; "one way tolerance".

I really don't know where I'm at myself.

But I can say this. As I said I am very often fed up with truthers and the alternative media. I think that there is a great deal of presumptuousness among many truthers. They refuse to look into certain areas, and they refuse to explore ideas of their opposition. I think it is based in fear, which as I said paradoxically seems to be necessary to have some amount of to be able to be enlightened. I try to be humble and not label anyone or anything as wrong or evil. Sure, I have blocks because of fear.

Maybe first having fear and then overcoming it is key to enlightenment. I think they actually talk about this in Kabbalah. I think it might be a Hegelian dialectic type of development.