It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Study shows conspiracy theorists are most sane

page: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: maybee

lol IKR. specifically, it's a female idiot. Menso would be masculine form




posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

I am totally bonkers nuts and fruitcakes, i think if a person admits he or she is insane, they just might be sane..



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Conspiracy theorists rarely take anything at face value. I think that is one of the healthiest and intelligent attributes you can have. ATS is certainly therapy for a questioning mind.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
of course conspiracy theorists are totally more saner than others. they have excellent deductive powers, and win every argument with flawless logic.


edit on 1-1-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Conspiracy theorists might be the most sane but are they any happier. Sometimes I look back at my previous belief system with its head in the sand approach, with envy.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

Conspiracy theorists might be the most sane but are they any happier.


The study does not say they are the most sane. But some conspiracy theorists have claimed that it does and other conspiracy theorist believe for no other reason.

That is the point of the thread. Conspiracy theorists aren't so much picky about the actual facts, just about where they come from.

edit on 1/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I did not take the thread that seriously. When conspiracy theorists loose faith in government, media, and even scientist they don't have a safety net to help determine if new facts/data are true or not which can lead to some very weird beliefs (lizard people, fake moon landing etc). Hopefully most can eventually return to a equilibrium where they can deduce logic from reading between the lines of reports instead of constantly believing everything from government sources is untrue.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

Hopefully most can eventually return to a equilibrium where they can deduce logic from reading between the lines of reports instead of constantly believing everything from government sources is untrue.
Yes. That would be nice. But it seems that for many the mere fact that some members attempt to encourage logic and critical thinking in considering any given conspiracy theory, constitutes evidence in favor of that theory. That is, if ATS is in any way representative.

edit on 1/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

yay i'm a normalist so



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: glend

Hopefully most can eventually return to a equilibrium where they can deduce logic from reading between the lines of reports instead of constantly believing everything from government sources is untrue.
Yes. That would be nice. But it seems that for many the mere fact that some members attempt to encourage logic and critical thinking in considering any given conspiracy theory, constitutes evidence in favor of that theory. That is, if ATS is in any way representative.


The brain will do everything to protect the integrity of its belief system (to protect against madness) so instead of slapping some people over the face with facts, planting seeds that grow, can be far more effective. Might take weeks or months, but the seeds will eventually grow when the time is right.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

I agree. I often attempt to emulate the Socratic method to that end. Unfortunately it seems that the source is often more important than the message however.

edit on 1/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Your not trying hard enough, my BS takes too much of a battering from you.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   
The use of the term "insane" in this context is problematic. How exactly do you define such a word? People tend to define it as "not sane, not of sound mind or mentally deranged" but these descriptions simply tell us what insane is NOT rather than what it is.


To be clear, insanity is a legal term pertaining to a defendant's ability to determine right from wrong when a crime is committed. Here's the first sentence of law.com's lengthy definition:

Insanity. n. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.

Insanity is a concept discussed in court to help distinguish guilt from innocence. It's informed by mental health professionals, but the term today is primarily legal, not psychological. There's no "insane" diagnosis listed in the DSM. There's no "nervous breakdown" either, but that's another blog.
Psychology Today



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join