It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Top 10 Personality Traits of a CTer

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:35 PM

But one other thing that you have to understand is, conspiracies don't always have the amount of evidence as the skeptics are armed with, because the skeptics are usually given their "factual evidence" by the very people that CTers would call the conspirators.

A very good point there. It's an endless cycle that kind of reminds me of republicans and democrats. ( No offense intended toward either party.) What we need to understand is that the Conspiracy Theorists and the Skeptics need each other to keep one another in check. Otherwise, the overly-skeptic wouldn't even consider certain out-of-the-box ideas, and the "Conspiracy Theorists" would get out of control without a voice of reason. I say it's better to be a skeptical "CT".

[Edited for typos.]

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Exemplar]

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Exemplar]

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Exemplar]

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Exemplar
I say it's better to be a skeptical "CT".

Agreed. It's good to think outside of what you are told to believe, but not to get out of hand with it and lose the original focus.

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:47 PM

Originally posted by KnowItAll

Originally posted by whaaa
I think that "CTers" could just as easily be replaced by "ICers" or the Ideologically Challenged.

I side with DK and loam. Huge brush strokes!!! and the troll alert was apropos!

Which is it...You're just not capable or willing to have a discussion on the article?
None of it is true of any CTer? Not all, but at least one or two? Really?

Sounds like you're a candidate for:

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

Or a troll.

Once again, I am not trying to offend or ridicule with this post. I am very sorry if that is the case. I believe you will agree with me that some CTers fit at least a couple of these traits.


Have you stepped back and REALLY thougth about your performance in this other thread?

It's really hard for us who have experienced your prior posting 'behaviour' to again try and have a civilized debate with you. Let me give you an example of some of your fine work from the afformentioned thread:


And that brings us to this whole all have fell for it...The SCHTICK that is. What's the word that folks like to use on this website...oh, that's it...SHEEPLE. Lot's of examples of those on this thread.

Here you are calling, apparently more than one person, SHEEPLE simply because they didn't agree with your oppinion. You didn't formally rebut ONE single point in the video that thread was about.

Now what was #1 again? (And the other one that talks about jumping to conclusions?)

It seems to me the 10 things mentioned at the beginning of this thread describe YOU.

Now, I'm not going to call you a troll or attack in such manner but I would like to point out it's not too late to change and you can start by stopping the practice of calling people "sheeple" (At least in the way you did in the thread I was talking about)

Also, don't forget about the gentle point I made concerning ad-hominum attacks and how they are really useless in a genuine debate.

Fortunately it's easy to ignore people on here even though KnowItAll has not made it on to my ignore list... yet....

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:02 PM

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Loam was being nice to you because he

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:39 PM

Originally posted by KnowItAll

I am not attempting to make fun of anyone.........
I find this website and the posters on it fascinating..........
Unfortunately you're not one of them................ Too bad you feel that way, that I'm making fun of you. Now run along to mama.

this guy is nothing but a button pusher. it is why he found and posted this article. can anyone tell me if this thread is worth reading past the quote i took from him? i lost my appetite for his " discussion" after he contradicts himself and belittles a member.

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:48 PM

Originally posted by loam
But all I have posted in this thread still remains true. The choice is yours. Will you be one of the honest brokers I mentioned?

Loam you are one cool cookie. I like the idea of treating every new post like a new day. I should always take note for how I have changed over the years and others do the same thing. You are such a positive person and a great attribute for this site.

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:11 PM
The topic of this thread is the list of CT 'traits', lets stick to the topic and not each other.

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:22 PM

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.


Classic example is: "WTC was the 3rd steel framed building ever to collapse due to fire, the first 2 were WTC1 and WTC2"

Aside the fact that they weren't the first to collapse... a more appropriate term would be: "WTC was the first building to collapse after being unfought for hours and having debris slam into it. The first two to do so were WTC1 and WTC2 which had huge planes rammed into them. The fire assisted the collapse by considerably weakening the steel but there are MANY other factors attributing to the collapse".

Not to mention the extremley faulty logic of The Pentagon theory...

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:32 PM
Indeed, conspiracy theory is, almost allways, far more complicated than the 'non-conspiracy' theory.

In science, they call this something like 'parsimony', given multiple alternative explanations (with a caveat of them all explaining the data equally well), you have no logical choice other than to choose the simplest, by virtue of it being more simple.

HOWEVER, I don't see how that can be used as general attack upon conspiracy theory. Operation Northwoods would seem way more complicated than merely suggesting that 'the cubans, who hate us, did it', and yet, had the plan be acted out, the more complicated 'theory' would've been the correct one.

Even in science, its recognized that nature doesn't act as simply as we'd like, so certainly when you're talking about the thoughts and actions of groups of people, simple doesn't necessarily mean 'more likely'.

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:47 PM

Originally posted by KnowItAll
I'd like to hear from those of you who have experienced this also, as well as those CTer's who think that this is correct or incorrect.

Mr. KnowItAll, I have only been involved with this forum for a little over a year and I have read some of the most interesting and most insightful postings. ATS has such a large pool of the best minds on the planet. Yes, some who post here are on the extreme side, that is the exception and not the rule.

I feel the link provided is way off the mark. In fact, the person who wrote the article is guilty of the same traits he tries to define for the so-called "CTer." I actually laughed when I read it.

I am always amazed at what some people will actually believe because "everyone else" thinks so. Granted, belongingness and esteem are in Maslow's hierachy of needs, but to blindly follow others without so much as a though is silly.

One of my favorite examples is the Hyneck's explanation of swamp/marsh gas. It was such a ridiculous statement that he resigned and later changed sides of the issue. So many people believed the gas theory, even though it was total nonsense.

Well, I guess we all have our own "marsh gas" theory to believe. From reading your post, it would seem that your "marsh gas" is that all conspiracy theories are without merit. Breathe the methane in and click your heels, my friend. "There is no place like home." Say "hi" to Auntie Em for us.

Since they love to pigeon hole people, I have made my own homage to the linked website:

Top 10 things sheeple do:
1. Never do their own research or thinking and only parrot the talking heads.
2. Enjoy being told what to do.
3. Enjoy being told what to think.
4. Enjoy being told what to say.
5. Enjoys only movies/music/web sites/ideas which are popular.
6. Never locks their door at night because the police will protect them.
7. Believe that people are guilty until proven innocent.
8. Believe everyone's rights should be taken away to protect the children/public or whatever is the popular phrase this week.
9. Believe the world is one happy place where all people want to be your friend.
10. Believe that you should never question authority because authority knows what they are doing.

Did I miss any?

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 12:17 AM
Great thread...overall good response from both camps....I normally lurk, but this thread has hit a chord and makes me want to contribute.

Excellent list...I think it is rare that one person exhibits the extreme of all of these traits, but all of these traits occur frequently on this board.

One trait that I think was missing from the original list (kind of hit on in points 8 and 9) is an intense reliance on argument by post hoc fallacy.

That is, the belief that because event B follows event A, then event A must have caused event B.

When I read threads here I see it quite often.

Correlation, whether temporal or otherwise, never implies causation. Event A does not have to cause event B.

Another trait is the use of ad hominem attacks. That is, someone says something that I don't like or goes against the grain, therefore I attack them and their argument is false.

An ad hominem argument was clearly demonstrated in the first reply to this thread. When this type of argument is made, and then recanted, as happened in this thread, it really makes that person's subsequent arguments much less effective.

A final point. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If I say that there is a talking dog in the corner of my room, then an impartial oberserver should be able to touch, see, and converse with the talking dog. Saying that the talking dog is invisible and only talks to me does not satisfy the requirement for extraordinary proof.

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 01:18 AM

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
the easiest way to discredit something is to analyze is grammatical content.

Actually, if an idea is sufficiently conveyed, I think the grammar is completely irrelevant. The absence of that particular skill has nothing to do with credibility of an argument or the intelligence of a poster.

In fact, I'd call your view on the matter the laziest way to address an argument I've seen admitted to in a long time.

Never were truer words ever written on the internet.

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 01:41 AM

Originally posted by KnowItAll
Well, you're starting to make my point. I didn't post this to be rude or offending.

The URL of this site is interesting


Oh and about the remark about 911ers. The official story is what it is. A STORY. Or to use another expression a CONSPIRACY THEORY. So if you believe in it you are a CT'er too.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by yanchek]

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 02:08 AM
you lay out a definition...that might fit one group of people who believe in conspiracies.

Names tend to get stuck and surrounded by goop of understanding.
i.e. as soon as the word conpiracy pops out, a defensive labelling takes place and the majority of minds, similar perhaps to what you listed, and then people go on their daily buisness and think nothing else of it.
After all, going to work, paying your taxes, being a good citizen is what life is all about isnt it.

Words are pointers, and sometimes people get stuck on the word thats pointing beyond itself.

As for me, I look at things as a whole.
I listen to ideas see how they fit in with how I have filtered information throughout my life...what makes since to me.
Where there are gaps of info, it stays open for more info...nothing is set in concrete, as there is no dire need to prove any one theory, as there is no need to dismiss what is being said.

Above all what really is important is that I enjoy life.
So as I enjoy life and I chat here and there, and contemplate possible alternative scenerios to that which is broadcasted on fox news (not that I ever watch it...but that seems to be a story telling place there from what i here...for the republican party.)

So in general you may have found a definition that from a perspective, may appear to have some general consitensies...but in the grand scheme of things, you will find people that dont fit nicely into this box, who will lend credence to the plausibility of a "conspiracy" which will not settle right in your mind...and then your mind will dismiss that case perhaps and focus on the so called "majority" that exhibit the type of behavior as you have described it.

The world is based on lies...thats why its so easy to dismiss information coming from the mass media.
Look at religion to begin with...(now Im not opening a debate here.)
For practical purposes, skip religion, go to politics.
The blatant misuse of power by those in "authority" while the average person is struggling to live up to the idea of being a "good person/citizen" ...serving those who are acting in opposition of everything they say they stand for.

See, its time, perhaps for some anyway, to learn to be lord of their own life, and take back for themselves what they have so freely surrendered to religion, politics, etc.
In Judaism there was no need for a king at one point (I know, I know, those of you who actually chat with a rabbi will hear and no of the passage which commands you have a king...however we know that Samuel wasnt to eager and said that Israel didnt need a king. Here you go, a nice contradiction already, for those of you more familiar with the subject.)

But why would you not need a king? Cause you are meant to make your own choices, for yourself.
There is not good and evil the way most people, specifically religious people know of.
God vs. devil, your either good or evil, with us or against us, no middle ground.
Hate to say it, but all there is mostly is middle ground. Tons of shades of grey that lead from white to black and back again, one doesnt exist without the other. Ironic no?

Good is the good of a group of people. That is how you always have good and evil as it exist the fact that people have an idea of what is good for them, and what is not is then their evil.
Notice noone who ever one a war actually said, "We the darkeness have won" Oh, cause good always wins...but what is good. Ha!

Now evil could be looked at in this way...when you force your will on another.
If we were to let each other be, then perhaps that is the epitimy of Good.
Maybe not, who knows. Perhpas the conflict helps bring about a better character in the other, until at least you realize you dont need the conflict.

What is this to do with conspiracies and how people act?
Goes back to the point that yes, most things given to us can be questioned due to the fact that people say what benefits themeselves...even those who speak benefits them as they believe they wont be condemned in hell.

So for the most part everything can be questioned...and who knows, perhaps there are as many answers as there are many solutions as there are roads...infinite possiblities.

Just look at perspective.
How you look at a thing vs. how someone else views it.
Then how you view it and how else you could view it, and it would still be right.
Then what are you viewing...and how it could be different.

The world becomes a quite different place, and things less frightening, even the Bush administration.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:50 AM
Super thread. Thanks, KnowItAll, for starting it. Amazing what throwing a cat into a coopful of pigeons reveals about the personalities of the pigeons -- and that of the cat.

I have to ask the obvious question. Why you visit this site at all if you don't believe in some conspiracy or other?

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:54 AM
It's obvious that the writer for the "Top 10 Personality Traits of a CTer" is actually a conspiracy theorist them self. To think all CTer's have the same personality traits, is a conspiracy in itself.

You can not "profile" a CTer. Being a CTer is not something someone chooses. It is simply human nature to question things that don't completely make sense, and create your own theory, that makes MORE sense. Because of the fact that it is human nature, EVERYONE, is a conspiracy theorist at heart.

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 07:55 AM
This should be retitled as Top 10 worst personality traits of a conspiracy theorist. I can take 1 through 10 and apply them to many of the threads that I have contributed too because I do not believe thermite, sonic pulse weapons, holograms and missles were used to bring down the WTC on 9/11. However, I do believe that Flight 93 was shot down. Trying to have a conversation in some threads is like trying to get a cup of coffee in downtown Beirut. Difficult, tiring and shots coming at you from ALL directions.

I mean, some of these posts show exactly what was trying to be explained in the first post. Never hang yourself with a post.

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:50 AM
Knowitall - you could ignore me, or you could approach it from another angle and ask why I don't believe the official story.

I disagree with plenty of other CT'ers, and agree with many more... I just like to get a good balance about the world, and will not believe what i am told unless it is backed by knowledge and or experience.

You wanted an answer, and i was prepared to give you one till I rwad your first post...the title hooked me (I was coming in to answer) and your posting annoyed me thats all it was - Not your question, but the way you asked the question.

As for loam telling you to ignore me...well you can if you want I have no problems with that at all....


posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:54 AM

No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

doesn't this sound an awfull lot like somthing the sheople, (i'm sorry, the "NON conspracy theorists") INSIST on doing, over, and over, and over again?...

lol... i'm sorry...but you would need a jack-hammer to cut through irony that thick

[edit on 4-10-2006 by Urn]

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:49 AM

Originally posted by KnowItAll
Well, you're starting to make my point. I didn't post this to be rude or offending. I'm trying desparately to understand this way of thinking. I was hoping to have an intelligent discussion, in an effort to educate myself to this way of thinking. Obviously not with you.

This way of thinking is simple. DISTRUST OF THE GOVERNMENT. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in