New study: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy

In this whole conspiracy debate, there more I grow up and observe everyone involved on both side of the coins, the more I realize just how strong of a sense of attachment people have to their beliefs. Whether it is the conspirationist or the anti-conspirationist, the exchange is mostly brutal and it is a rare occurence to see any of them have a change of mind. Of course, there are also some in the middle, but that's another story.

Then, we have this whole phenomena of debunking where debunkers claim to have all the answers and evidences of the countless flaws of conspiracy theories. When you read into it, it seems like no conspiracy is based on solid facts whatsoever. It's almost like they say conspiracy theorists are complete nuts who are only trying to find a sense to their miserable life.
I'm making a generalization here so you get the point.

Today, I found this article and thought it would be interesting to share with the ATS community because for once it doesn't claim conspiracy theorists are fools who believe anything they see.

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

Direct Link

Personnaly, I must admit I kind of agree with this article, except for the part where it says debunkers are more aggressive than truthers. I think both sides are equally violent.

The major difference for me between people who believe in conspiracies and those who don't is the fact that conspirationists always question the official version, which is a good thing I believe, and on the other side, anti-conspirationists who most likely believe what officials say. They won't really take the time to think out of the box and will often base their beliefs on the claims of so-called experts. They will say to themselves 'Who should I believe, 'kids' on the internet, or government officials?'. Now, in a world of justice and equity this would be a good thing, but in this world of ours where we are being lied upon every day of every year, I sincerely believe this is a very bad thing.

In the end, it only really comes to this
Not everything is a conspiracy and not every mainstream belief isn't.

reply to post by St0rD

They will say to themselves 'Who should I believe, 'kids' on the internet, or government officials?'.

How sad is it that I would be more inclined to believe a "kid" on the internet before pretty much anything my government tells me?

S&F

the very fact that proponents of assorted "Official Stories" vehemently INSIST that we believe EVERYTHING the tv tells us SHOULD set off alarms for anyone. THAT sounds insane to me. the television is THE most powerful propaganda machine ever devised by modern humans. you're (not you OP, but OSers) telling me that it's NEVER used toward that end and i should just equate it with The Truth? please.

interesting post!

The world basicly has gone insane. Doesn't take much if you didn't do anything serious bad to make you saner than average.
Which isn't a good thing by any means.

reply to post by Urantia1111


I've thought a lot about this concept lately: Television being the most powerful engine of propaganda.

This is a very hardly debatable truth when you keep in mind that if you go on a walk around 6 P.M, almost every TVs are lit through the windows.

Insane would be someone who stops asking questions.
Then we'd have a huge problem...

It's not a "new study", it's from last year and I would hardly call the article linked in the OP unbiased:

According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true.

www.presstv.ir...


Here's what Mike Wood, one of the authors of the actual study, says about the article's twisting of the facts.

In this case, of course, the paper says nothing of the sort and the article’s conclusions are based on misrepresentations of several critical findings.

In writing this Barrett did not realise that these only include persuasive comments – comments that were written with the apparent intent to change somebody’s mind about the cause of 9/11. It doesn’t include comments that, for instance, take the conventional explanation for granted and just talk about something else; that complain about someone else’s post; that simply insult someone; and so on. So 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. Probably it’s true of a few articles, but certainly not in general

conspiracypsychology.com...

St0rD
reply to post by Urantia1111

 

I've thought a lot about this concept lately: Television being the most powerful engine of propaganda.

This is a very hardly debatable truth when you keep in mind that if you go on a walk around 6 P.M, almost every TVs are lit through the windows.

absolutely. somebody 60 years ago realized many people (at least at that time) would be at home eating dinner with their families by then. lets give em a solid hour of NEWS as they relax and comfortably stuff their faces. easy targets for influence of whichever flavor we choose.

ETA aaaaand Phage has joined us. right on cue. good evening sir!

Phage
It's not a "new study", it's from last year and I would hardly call the article linked in the OP unbiased:

According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true.

www.presstv.ir...


Here's what Mike Wood, one of the authors of the actual study, says about the article's twisting of the facts.

In this case, of course, the paper says nothing of the sort and the article’s conclusions are based on misrepresentations of several critical findings.

In writing this Barrett did not realise that these only include persuasive comments – comments that were written with the apparent intent to change somebody’s mind about the cause of 9/11. It doesn’t include comments that, for instance, take the conventional explanation for granted and just talk about something else; that complain about someone else’s post; that simply insult someone; and so on. So 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. Probably it’s true of a few articles, but certainly not in general

conspiracypsychology.com...

edit on 2/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Phage you are exactly what the OP is talking about. We are the sane ones.. Not you. Then again.. So how much are you being paid to post here?
Firepiston

reply to post by Phage

You've never met a conspiracy you didn't dislike, eh, phage? I'd be surprised if you didn't think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone...or at least in conjunction with the communists.

You are a fine American in the newest & perverted sense. I bet you think CNN (and others) are "journalism," too.

Tow that party-line, amigo.

reply to post by Phage


I must give you that, I also found that part of the article to be unbiased. However, you've got to keep in mind this is mostly a response to the same tactic being used by anti-conspirationists and debunkers.

As for the website you provided (conspiracypsychology), seems to me they are doing a pretty damn good job trying to convince us of the inconsistency of conspiracy theories.

Like saying

Current psychological research is showing conspiracy theories to be potentially detrimental to us all.

Ironically, I'm thinking the exact opposite.

There would be no conspiracies (or almost) if there were not as much lies and as we have today. Their existence rely precisely on that fact.

reply to post by FirePiston

Phage you are exactly what the OP is talking about.

I understand that. Do you understand that the study being talked about does not say what the article in the OP says that it says? Do you realize that you have be misled about it?

So how much are you being paid to post here?

I don't know. Going on 6 years now and still no check. But maybe you should read my sig.

reply to post by St0rD

As for the website you provided (conspiracypsychology), seems to me they are doing a pretty damn good job trying to convince us of the inconsistency of conspiracy theories.

Or, studies show that could indeed be the case.

So when someone distorts the result of a study so that it fits your worldview, the study is valid.
But when those distortions are pointed out, the study is not valid.

Got it.

Phage
reply to post by St0rD

 

As for the website you provided (conspiracypsychology), seems to me they are doing a pretty damn good job trying to convince us of the inconsistency of conspiracy theories.

Or, studies show that could indeed be the case.

So when someone distorts the result of a study so that it fits your worldview, the study is valid.
But when those distortions are pointed out, the study is not valid.

Got it.

Well nice try trying to lecture me.

What are you trying to prove here? That nothing said in this article has some truth to it, because it might have been distorded? Yeah I got it, same old story.

And clearly, the website you provided doesn't try at all to induce a distorded and specific viewpoint.

As a self-professed Conspiracy theorist I do not have any strong attachment to my beliefs.
What I have are strong attachments to my questions.

Cheers,

Ubei2
Insane would be someone who stops asking questions.
Then we'd have a huge problem...

But we do have huge problems. Ergo...?

reply to post by St0rD

That nothing said in this article has some truth to it, because it might have been distorded?

That's right. The article in the OP is about a study and it complete distorts what the study found.
But it is a good demonstration of how people will attempt to twist anything to fit their worldview. I think there are studies about that too.

scholar.google.com...

Phage
reply to post by St0rD

 

That nothing said in this article has some truth to it, because it might have been distorded?

But it is a good demonstration of how people will attempt to twist anything to fit their worldview. I think there are studies about that too.

Hey, no need of studies for that.

You're doing a pretty damn good job.

Phage
But it is a good demonstration of how people will attempt to twist anything to fit their worldview. I think there are studies about that too.

scholar.google.com...

DOH!!

reply to post by St0rD

Can you point out what facts I have distorted?