schrodingers dog, you're taking it a bit too personally. It doesn't apply to all CT's. There are those who seek no proof to their theories. There are those who want control. The ones who say "I'll be the one laughing when SHTF". That is control of sorts that they are after.
I see nothing bad in conspiracy theories but some people do take it a bit too far..

Note: Unfortunately none of the conspiracy theories have been proven. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit: A little skepticism is what we need to prevent us being labelled nut-jobs..

[edit on 25/5/2009 by DGFenrir]

[edit on 25/5/2009 by DGFenrir]

i read this post and following post and had to laugh. i can understand the frustration in an institution that wants to lable people. it is a frustrating thing. but, by the very nature of us calling the "others" "sheep", and "alseep" and we as those who are not, we are placing our selves in a sub-culture. there is a big difference in being a ct'r and believing in a theory.

This BS is like Eugenics Sciences. Remember in the 30s how nazis scientists PROVED that anyone but the Aryan nation was a defect of the human race and therefore should be exterminated so the human race could reach the stars?

I mean if you're against eugenics science, you're against science itself!

Same thing here. That kind of science is like statistics, they can make up whatever they want.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Vitchilo]

The study, still unpublished, shows that conspiracy believers displayed a greater propensity than nonbelievers to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence.

They are kidding right?
CTers do more research on these topics mentioned than Joe Blow who just soaks up the Propoganda being pumped out of his TV, Radio and Newspapers.
I think the mind controlled sheep are the ones who ACCEPT THE MSMs SPIN on events with NO RESEARCH and LIMITED EVIDENCE.

For example, within a few minutes of 9/11 happening the MSM were already pumping out to Joe Public that Muslim extremists and Osama Bin Laden were the perps when it was IMPOSSIBLE at that stage for anyone to know.
If that isn't LIMITED EVIDENCE , I don't know what is.

While there is no way to avoid labels and the like, I don't think this article is about labels so much as it is cheap propaganda. After all, what context would the media or psychological profession need to find themselves in to have a report come out poo-pooing and marginalizing the world of "conspiracy theorists"? What use was it? If not to help those that have a tendency to avoid questioning things to their sometimes almost unbelievable outcome by giving them some "ammo" the next time someone they talk too starts questioning the Gov or some such thing, then it seems quite a waste of resources.

Psychological warfare is terribly hard to fight. Someone with a history of "doing the right thing" says you're crazy and gives a false testimony against you while sounding like they care about your welfare. Then you are questioned, and because the best lie is peppered with the truth, you say: "Why ,yes, officer, I do think 911 was an inside job." Then it's off to the looney bin for you, with a nice overblown story for your loved ones and the media. The more you protest - the more angry you become - the more crazy you look to others and even when you speak the truth no one believes you. Then because of the way you are treated and the circumstances of your life being turned upside down, you actually may even start to feel and act crazy.

That is the end result of a paranoid populace. We begin turning each other in. The lower authorities feel threatened by some one who vocalizes their alternative views. Ad Hominem and Straw man arguments are benefited by a sometimes intelligent but controlled public.

When one has a story that's hard to believe on its own and takes research on the part of their listeners to validate, one must remember to have some of that research to present immediately to a skeptical listener, otherwise most of them will look at the presenter like he/he is an idiot and walk away.
(Outside of ATS, that is)

It boils down to this: groupthink.

S&F

Wonderful topic to debate, I never was one to like authority figures, however, even the conspiracy theorist themselves can be a tool for manipulating and controlling a persons mind.

And instilling fear and mistrust, sometimes where there shouldn't be,

I have come to the conclusion it is a conspiracy, within a conspiracy, within a conspiracy.

For instance, one might be able to get people to believe a lie and spread falsehoods in order to gain control.

It is getting very hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys now days, and we are willing pawns of information overload.

One must question what people seek to gain from certain theories, everyone has an agenda for mind control,

There is no doubt that most people who start anti Christian topics, for the most part, want to turn people against Christians,

It is like politics, one side vilifies the other to gain control.

It is always ABOUT CONTROL, seldom about tolerance.

I don't trust anybody, and I am seldom disappointed.

[edit on 103131p://bMonday2009 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
There has been a clearly identifiable pattern lately to try to marginalize and label conspiracy theorists into an psychologically based sub-category.

From a CT point of view this in itself screams of conspiracy.

Did perhaps the title or the initial paragraphs irritate the dickens out of you? I'm not being ironic or snarky here, but I wonder if you had a negative reaction to those first few paragraphs since the rest of the study was pretty much a fair description.

In a nutshell (translating the findings) :
* most CTs believe the government is hiding a LOT of things... not just covering up one thing.
* most CTs like to discuss this and find it's hard to talk about it with other folks so they hang out in places like ATS where they can find folk to discuss and investigate these interests.
* most CTs want to show the conspiracies to the world to make it a better place and get rid of some of the problems created by the conspiracies.
* most CTs distrust the government's spin on things.
* most CTs are knowledgeable about past (true) conspiracies and use those as a basis for their current (unproven) conspiracies.

You may call it categorization, but in my experience it's actually a fair assessment and a set of beliefs that I see frequently expressed on this board and other boards. Most of this would be true of any other group (such as avid Star Trek fans... they like to hang out with others, they want to make the world a better place, they're knowledgeable about science and Trek stuff, etc...)

It's not exactly ground-breaking.

They also acknowledged that on some issues (9/11) there is not a general consensus about what parts are believable to a CT and which aren't. I've seen other studies that were basically "look at the freaks" studies (in particular, about people with elaborate and prominent tattoos and about people in the sf community) and this doesn't compare with those.

Originally posted by obilesk
While there is no way to avoid labels and the like, I don't think this article is about labels so much as it is cheap propaganda. After all, what context would the media or psychological profession need to find themselves in to have a report come out poo-pooing and marginalizing the world of "conspiracy theorists"?

It's probably because the authors themselves have a strong interest in the conspiracies themselves. This doesn't appear to be an entirely disinterested study and it's not particularly negative. I think that there's some fascination with conspiracy theories expressed (at least it appears so from the article) and is an attempt to make a decent definition before some completely biased source starts in on "they're all about Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh and are nut-case mouth-frothing dangerous gun nuts!!!"

Without a GOOD paper as a basis, other information (like "Look at the wingnuts" studies (as has happened with gamers, much to my great disgust)) will tend to color anything and everything written about the group.

Gamers have had to live down the "gaming causes suicides! All gamers are asocial geeks who live in their parents' basements and can't hold down jobs!" studies that were done on us in the 1980's. It's only been recently with the work of Nick Yee and others that gamers have been framed in a more positive light.

Originally posted by Byrd
Did perhaps the title or the initial paragraphs irritate the dickens out of you?

I want to address this to clarify because another member made a similar observation ...

Originally posted by DGFenrir
schrodingers dog, you're taking it a bit too personally.

Irritated, to a certain degree, see it as a personal affront, certainly not.

Perhaps I wasn't very clear on what I was trying to convey.

The issue here is not as much what they are saying as it is why they are saying it.

Byrd, you listed many descriptions that surely apply to a lot of CT, but that's not the way they were presented in the article, or apparently how they will be presented in the soon to be released paper.

If you go back to the last page, or the article itself, and take a look at the construct of their descriptions, it is always a melange of the virtuous and the deviant.

It is a deliberate construct, based on limited data, that can only serve one purpose ...

Namely to marginalize CT under a psychological premise.

It is not a matter of being upset or insulted, it is simply that this sort of deflection and misinformation needs to be observed and understood.

I mean ...

The study, still unpublished, shows that conspiracy believers displayed a greater propensity than nonbelievers to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence.

... while conceding ...

Goertzel says the new study provides an intriguing but partial look at the inner workings of conspiracy thinking.

(em)

... come on now.

As an academic I am sure you can recognize the flaws and the deception before us.

That's all.

[edit on 25 May 2009 by schrodingers dog]

Who are the weirdos that decided to study the psychology of the "conspiracy subculture" anyway?

I say herd the politicians and bankers in there.Hook up the electrodes,and administer a healthy dose of electricity upon the utterance of such words as war,money,terrorism,or economy.

Then we'd truly get to the core of the rotten psychology that's been eating away America.

"Psychology of a Conspiracy Theorist"?

Just wait until you see the hellish internal thinking that goes on at the White House.

I'll be awaiting the results of this fascinating study.

That "partial" doesn't = CTs jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. It IS our own fault. ATS is full of people described in that article. There are more blind believers, who need no evidence to believe their fantasies, than there are those who actually seek proof to the theories. ATS will probably soon be known as "Ignorance Central Online"..
As a person who's interested in psychology and know a lot about it I agree with everything in the paper.
And I'll repeat that it refers to the blind believers. That's probably majority of us here..

Originally posted by DGFenrir

Yes I know that there are people like that here. That's what's keeping me here. Regardless of that threads which lack ignorance or any other negative properties are quite rare.

So I guess we're in agreement then ...

As goes the world so goes ATS, conspiracy theorists and all.

No psychological label or sub-category required.

[edit on 25 May 2009 by schrodingers dog]

This whole article is BS! The same arguments that this argument makes against "conspiracy theorists" can be applied to Police, Lawyers, Psychologists, and or the media. It can be said that these "legitimate" professions speculate and collaborate with each other, believe things that are unknown to the general public (profiling, or hypothesizing) and develop policy and procedures around these shared beliefs.

When a police officer thinks someone may be doing something illegal they get suspicious. They develop an opinion based around the observed behavior. They collaborate with their fellow officers.

Well, you can berate me for it, but...

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
I mean ...

The study, still unpublished, shows that conspiracy believers displayed a greater propensity than nonbelievers to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence.

... while conceding ...

Goertzel says the new study provides an intriguing but partial look at the inner workings of conspiracy thinking.

(em)

I agree with both, actually. Take a look at Skunk Works and see how many badly constructed concepts there are out there (which can be blown over by a little googling). I think the CTs are more open about posting them or about talking about them and there's community support for this. Post that aliens from Spica are kidnapping stray dogs for genetic experimentation over here, and you get a kinder response than if you post it over at JREF.

But, because some odd ideas are accepted (and encouraged), you do see very hasty conclusions bandied about as truths.

You don't see as much of this on other boards (say... a board for car enthusiasts) because the community will either shun the odd idea with silence or just scoff at it. Conspiracy boards reward creative thinking (and some of them, like GLP, actually make heroes of some of the hoaxers, falling for the thinnest of excuses. You're probably judging other boards by ATS standards, and I'm afraid that not all of them have the discerning folk we have here.

And I agree that it's a partial look. Every board has a different environment. I'm a member of other CT boards, and each has a very different flavor. People gravitate to the ones they're comfortable with. You wouldn't know I was a member of the other boards because I don't post. There's no quality info there, and the leaps of logic that folks take are dizzying (or hoaxes, or both.)

I still think it's a pretty fair assessment, based on a good 10 years of being a member on quite a few conspiracy boards.

My mileage may vary from yours.