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

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Yes, we do have many, many problems. My point is: if at an instance, we as society stop asking questions, stop questioning the dogma, be it in any field of human interest and livelihood, that would be our demise. Ergo, huge problem.

Akragon
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

edit on 8-2-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

That video deserves a thread of it's own.

Smart girl. Not just for what she said but the way she stuck to the point and made it so easy. It is child's play...

Phage
reply to post by St0rD

 

Can you point out what facts I have distorted?

Besides blaming poor farmers for the fiscal and biological terrorism of, say, Monsanto?

Here's your opportunity, Phage: Do you think there are any modern conspiracies or extraordinary malfeasance--by those in power positions--(especially as relates the U.S.) that have any basis in fact? Or historically for that matter?

reply to post by St0rD


I think so. There's a holistic something to being a little paranoid. Paranoids take it all in. Just think of the 20th century - the Holocaust, the piles of bodies in WWI, the Gulags, the US suppression in South America, the Mao policies that killed millions, all kinds of nightmares all across the world. I don't blame anyone for not subscribing to a given conspiracy/paranoid worldview and saying so, but when they approach the idea that something bad could be happening as absurd, or mentally ill, THEY are more out of touch with history than the paranoid person.

reply to post by The GUT

Yes. I'm quite sure there are "conspiracies", in the broad terms used by conspiracy theorists.
But we don't hear about many of them, here or anywhere else.

Phage
reply to post by The GUT

 

Yes.
But we don't hear about many of them, here or anywhere else.

Then as a person of character, it would seem as if you might share that and help educate? Can you give two examples?

reply to post by The GUT

I'm sure they exist.
That doesn't mean I know what they are. Or do you want me to make something up?

I really do think this all depends on what conspiracy and what conspiracy theorists we're talking about.

For instance, you may have one Conspiracy Theorist that claims Government involvement with ET because of evidence X, Y, Z, etc., while another claims the very same thing, but, because the Alien Voices inside their head beamed directly from an orbiting Mothership told them so.

Where one might have a rational claim to their assertion, another may claim the very same, but, for entirely mental illness related, irrational, and/or entirely subjective fantasy "feeling" based reasons.

There are also a cadre of Band-Wagoneers and Parrots that will hop on to support near any old claim out of the fringe without following up on sources, just because the "like" it, who also then go on to disseminate their beliefs from positions of false/bogus authority, many willing to actively deny/ignore any relevant evidence casting doubt on their belief based assertions.

We have a responsibility to self police and draw distinctions.

Not all Conspiracies, or those who support them are created equal.

Phage
reply to post by The GUT

 

I'm sure they exist.
That doesn't mean I know what they are. Or do you want me to make something up?

You're kind o' like Rain Man then, I'd say, really good at math but lousy at tying your historical shoes.

reply to post by The GUT

Oh, you mean conspiracies that have proven to exist? There are plenty of those. Now, have conspiracy theorists uncovered them? Not so many. Unless you consider real investigators like Woodward and Bernstein or Daniel Ellsberg to be conspiracy theorists. I don't, I consider them to be real investigators.

Phage
reply to post by The GUT

 

Oh, you mean past conspiracies that have proven to exist? There are plenty of those. Now, have conspiracy theorists uncovered them?

That's called "precedent." It's a legal term. What is a "conspiracy theorist," btw? Are investigative journalists (a dying breed) "conspiracy theorists?"

Some conspiracy theorists are insane, no question.

But MOST are simply people with very strong historical knowledge and a very low threshold for "coincidence" and logical fallacy from a government that's proven hundreds of times to be corrupt to the core.

Demonizing the opposition through slanderous and dismissive labels like "conspiracy theorist" is textbook Saul Alinsky. His Rules for Radicals should be required reading for anyone serious about waking themselves up to the tricks of TPTB, as should Edward Bernay's treatise Propaganda and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World Revisited

reply to post by The GUT

Are investigative journalists (a dying breed) "conspiracy theorists?"

No. They don't distort facts to fit their suspicions. Not the ones who actually come up with anything anyway.
But you are right, investigative journalists are becoming rare. They're being replaced by internet conspiracy theorists.

Phage
But you are right, investigative journalists are becoming rare. They're being replaced by internet conspiracy theorists.

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

Only outclassed by those with their heads in the sand. Not every conspiracy theory is a fact, and not every fact is a conspiracy theory.

Glad you set us straight that any legitimate conspiracies have only been busted in the past, ahem, or have failed to ever be noted here at ATS or elsewhere.

reply to post by Phage

Sure I'll tell you.

There is a reason why I value ATS and you are part of that.
People are quick to help establish the veracity of informations to a point where it's easy to know if they are truly valid. That's exactly what you did here by pointing out the way the author distorded the study. Thank you for that.
But then what? Does that mean everything said in the article is wrong? I doubt it.

You know, there is not always the need for a study to help prove a point and start an interesting conversation. The main purpose of an OP is to start a discussion and it's why I provided my opinion so we could discuss on this subject. But by acting the way you are, repeating and staying attached on what the author did, you're distording the main idea of this thread, which is, being a conspiracy theorist might be saner than the contrary.

Why don't you give your own opinion on this subject instead of linking to debatable anti-conspiracy website and random studies? That's what a veteran member of ATS just like you should provide to a thread. It just seem to me like you're being close-minded right now, therefore the distorsion.

reply to post by St0rD

But by acting the way you are, repeating and staying attached on what the author did, you're distording the main idea of this thread, which is, being a conspiracy theorist might be saner than the contrary.

I think you would have to define sanity and it's gradations to say anyone is "saner" than anyone else.

How's that for adding to the discussion of the topic?

therealguyfawkes
Some conspiracy theorists are insane, no question.

But MOST are simply people with very strong historical knowledge and a very low threshold for "coincidence" and logical fallacy from a government that's proven hundreds of times to be corrupt to the core.

I really like what you said there, G. Fawkes. Learning via historical data is one of the most sure fire means to get to the bottom of things. What better way to solve a problem than to troubleshoot starting from when it last happened and analyse It's cause and effect.

Coincidences aren't a phenomenon, in my opinion, I've found there's always a reason why something happens, even if the factor is so miniscule that you aren't quite aware of It's existence.

Insane by definition is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. This in and of itself is illogical. Insanity is about using your logic or not, no? It's not logical to think about the same 'factor' over and over and expect to get something out of it, you have to look 'out 'from' the perspective of other factors. You have to at some point, because anything else would be illogical and repetitive.

ETA: I like to coin this as "living in your own head" syndrome. Although not a real text book syndrome and one that I just made it up, it serves a legitimate point. stay with me for a minute

I think we can measure insanity by the degree of how far one takes it to not choose to view factors from other perspectives after continuously repeating the same factor over and over without new logical results to show for it's cause and effect.

We can also further measure this degree by duration and quantity, how long has this been going on for, and how many times has it happened?


You might think that measurement in and of itself is based on perspective, who are you to what "logical results are?"

I think this is provable

An example would what someone would call an insane mathematician, OK. Everyone thinks he's insane because he will sit in his office all day and relentlessly work on equations, however when people go to read them they either a) don't understand it because they aren't a very knowledgeable mathematician themselves, b) they will see bunnies drawn all of the page, numerous bunnies, that serve no logical relevance to the equation at hand when the mathematician points at the filled of what he claims are his equations (this would be a sure sign of insanity) [bad joke]

Or c) The mathematician continuously sits in his office all day working with away with his equations while everyone sits around thinking he's insane, and even though people think he is insane, there comes a day where he eventually comes to a cause and effect solution, at which his equation finally "equates" and he's made a valid formula to show for it. The mathematician would not have come to this logical answer if he wrote the same equation over and over (insanity), he wouldn't have, we can agree on that right? Only an insane mathematician would do that. I think this explains the definition and measurement of insanity and it can be applied to any factor or problem at hand this, is is just one example.

The sane mathematician will eventually work out a problem in a logical way by not repeating the same factors over and over, this can only be done by approaching a question or "equation" from another perspective, thus coming to a logical solution at the end of his equation to show for it.

ETA 2: I understand my posts aren't very popular around here because they don't usually have links and sources of literature and what have you to explain for them or to back them up to any degree.

I choose to think "freely" and I'm well aware it's this isn't a very popular notion to many, and definitely not accepted as legitimate reading or proof, and no,
I can't do math either, I've admitted to this at some point in the past once already.

Although I can't do math I've always been able to do what I like to term as "applied math", this is when I'm specifically applying myself to find an answer to a specific problem that I "want" to find an explanation or answer for

I also understand some "might" not understand what I'm talking about, and that's also OK

therealguyfawkes
Some conspiracy theorists are insane, no question.

But MOST are simply people with very strong historical knowledge and a very low threshold for "coincidence" and logical fallacy from a government that's proven hundreds of times to be corrupt to the core.

Demonizing the opposition through slanderous and dismissive labels like "conspiracy theorist" is textbook Saul Alinsky. His Rules for Radicals should be required reading for anyone serious about waking themselves up to the tricks of TPTB, as should Edward Bernay's treatise Propaganda and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World Revisited

As to your first sentence, I'll agree there is a demographic that may fall under mental health concern.

"MOST" Conspiracy Theorists being legitimate, however?
No.

Conspiracy Theorists are more likely in the rarified minority, where the bulk of fringe reporting comes from the Band-Wagoneers and Parrots I mentioned in an edit to my previous post, as well as those fitting in with our first sentences.

The ease with which and popularity for many taking up a "Conspiracy" flag is not necessarily evidence for the existence of any X Conspiracy, but, more a symptom of or for the popularity of Social Dissonance regarding any number of controversies prevalent and deemed important to a society with elevated emotional investment in the topics of controversy.
We then get escalations of "proof" produced to validate any X position on any controversial Y issue, some escalations falling into the "conspiracy" bucket.

Jesus Phage...an old RCMP corporal once told me,(and I have observed its a truism)
"Everybody Lies"

Phage
Unless you consider real investigators like Woodward and Bernstein or Daniel Ellsberg to be conspiracy theorists. I don't, I consider them to be real investigators.

Investigators, investigators of what? Government corruption perhaps?

Hmmm....no conspiracy there.

And interesting that you would include Ellsberg -
who recently claimed that The U.S. is a death squad country.

Phage
reply to post by The GUT

 

Yes. I'm quite sure there are "conspiracies", in the broad terms used by conspiracy theorists.
But we don't hear about many of them, here or anywhere else.

Double hmmmm....