It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: freeenergymobile
a reply to: OrionsGem
Hats off to the OP for postng this thred.
I looked at the Psychology Today article and I would have dismissed it. It is so full of academic language that I would not have found the relevent sections.Like the Bible conflicting conclusions could be made. I think the OP is correct in his writeup of the article.
As several conspiracy theries were referenced, the posts I have seen about Ebola(tm) amplify the OP's statements. People buying the government line in this matter are rare. Those defending the governments actions are angry. I assume because their paradime of reality is being shaken. And a common thread in this discussion is the government. Why would anyone trust them when the lies are so easy to prove?
So I am a conspiracy theorist because I seek the truth in all things.
originally posted by: delgado101
i don't think the average person realizes how amazing it is that we haven't had a real 'nuclear' incident despite humans making pretty much every other mistake and grievance ( to err is human ) - also in this amazingness is the possibility and perhaps probability that 'conspiracy' like 'confidential' technologies and procedures are in place to hold this delicate balance - for better or worse the authors of the constitution and many of its scholars did not expect the possibility of zero-sum nuclear or biological war scenarios - it would be nice to see more truth telling in this regard to help affirm the sanity and perhaps a progression of society of those who may perceive a catch-22 scenario - maybe even a revised constitution could be in order
originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: OrionsGem
Surely you're not talking about my link? No assumption. It is the study referenced.
The words are taken out of context, in order to convey a message not given in the actual study.
In other words, this is sensationalism, and not journalism.
The actual study makes no conclusion that conspiracy theorists are more sane, or thinking more critically.
It talks of their locus of control being externalized, and their belief system having to do with their flavor of conspiracy theories they tend to favor.
Jesus, murdered, Martin Luther King, murdered, Malcolm X, murdered, Gandhi, murdered, John Lennon, murdered, Reagan... wounded.
This study shows that conspiracy theorists are the majority and hence more "sane". Less aggressive, more rational.
You're not a heretic anymore if your views are in majority.
We also found that hostility was higher in persuasive arguments made by conventionalists than in those by conspiracists. As 9/11 conspiracism is by and large a minority viewpoint in the West (WorldPublicOpinion.org, 2008), this makes sense: conventionalists, rather than focusing on presenting novel information, instead attempt to enforce conformity to the majority viewpoint (Latané, 1981).
Conspiracy beliefs have been shown to be positively correlated with mistrust of other people (Goertzel, 1994) and authorities (Swami et al., 2010); feelings of powerlessness and low self-esteem (Abalakina-Paap et al., 1999); superstition, beliefs in the paranormal, and schizotypy (Darwin et al., 2011); a perceived lack of control (Hamsher et al., 1968; Whitson and Galinsky, 2008); a Machiavellian approach to social interaction (Douglas and Sutton, 2011); and openness to experience (Swami et al., 2010; but see Swami et al., 2011).
The researchers didn't write that anywhere in the study.
it’s totally baseless to conclude that conspiracist comments outnumber conventionalist comments – I did the data collection for this study and am positive that this is not the case.
You are right. Actually I didn't read the paper at all, just the article. Sitting here now just a bit because I can't sleep, will soon have to go to work. I might not have read your post very carefully either, so sorry then. I think it's probably harmful to get emotionally attached to any position which is why I don't really care. Besides I already know I'm considered mad and I'm comfortable with it. But some posts have sparked my interest to maybe later look at this subject more.
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: OneManArmy, introspectionist
They aren't in the majority. You didn't read the paper carefully enough.
Who is this doctor you squeak of?
originally posted by: Grimpachi
I do believe in conspiracies just not the outlandish ones without evidence.
To demonstrate the type of conspiracies I believe in the article this thread is based on seems to be one perpetrated by those at Natural News on the conspiracy community by misrepresenting a study purposely or maybe the author and editor is just stupid.
Conspiracy theorists just leave more 'persuasive' conspiracy-related comments on news sites than 'conventionalists' do. This is probably because most 'conventionalists' don't have an urgent need to explain their beliefs or try to convert others to them. Why should they? Their belief is the most widely accepted one.
yeah god forbid someone should actually think for themselves....
just because a belief is widely accepted does not mean it is correct...