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.

 

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

page: 5
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by burntheships
 

the study doesn't say that.
www.readcube.com...


Dont know what your odd link says, it will not load.
Here is a mirror of the quote from the study, it is verbatim.

www.veteranstoday.com...




posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   

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.

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



It's the forest for the trees thing, I think. The whole point of so many different, 'colorful' conspiracies. Keeps the majority occupied chasing down thousands of unprovable 'facts' with *zero* hard evidence. I mean the kind of evidence that the "majority" will accept as proven fact.

There are probably really only 3 or 4 real "Grand Conspiracies" that exist. The thing is that I have never seen one of them exposed in a away that didn't render them totally useless as a means of getting the truth accepted by the masses.
They are always presented in a manner that involves shady people and shadier websites. That immediately casts doubt on their legitemacy, so they are summarily dismissed before being proven true.

Hey, possibly the biggest conspiracy of all!!!



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

The link is to the study. It loads fine for me. Try this one.
Wood-Douglas


Here is a mirror of the quote from the study, it is verbatim.
Verbatim, but from the article, not from the study.
What's the point of posting a mirror of the article posted in the OP? Like I said, it doesn't matter how many times you quote the article in the OP, the study does not say what the article says it does.


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



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jennybee35
 


We are all to blame for letting this happens.

If people were just a little bite more conscious, let's say to the level of 25%, they would rapidly awaken to this whole illusion. Only then they would realize that having to considerate numerous conspiracies could be true is already too much of what we should accept as a society.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Phage
the study does not say what the article says it does.



Phage to be so adamant with your beliefs you must have a valid resource...
Please link to me the "study" in a direct link that is viable to U.S. citizens?

Not from your list of "blogs" for credibility!



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

The only blog I linked was that of one of the authors of the study.
But see above for another link to that study. I'm in the US by the way, and the first link works fine for me.


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



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Alright, well I have found the original study.

Debunk this:


Finally, conventionalist arguments tended to have a more hostile
tone. These tendencies in persuasive communication can be understood
as a reflection of an underlying conspiracist worldview in which the details
of individual conspiracy theories are less important than a generalize
rejection of official explanations.

www.frontiersin.org...


Entertain yourself.
edit on 8-2-2014 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

Yup you got me. Conventionalists tend to be more hostile. Does that make them crazy? According to the article in the OP it does.


Oh, interesting. Conspiracists are not really concerned about details. The just tend to reject official explanations without paying much attention. That's a nice approach to looking for the "truth."

Another little tidbit:

In contrast, 64% of conspiracist comments involved derogation of the opposing explanation, significantly more than the 44% of conventionalist comments that did the same


I don't know, could be a fine line between hostile and derogatory.

edit on 2/9/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by burntheships
 

Yup you got me. Conventionalists tend to be more hostile. Does that make them crazy? According to the article in the OP it does.


I have never been conventional, sorry I can not answer to that. Maybe you
can help us out to understand the more sane points if there are any?




edit on 9-2-2014 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Maybe you
can help us out to understand the more sane points if there are any?

I can't.
Because nothing in the study addresses the sanity of either group. It's a fabrication of the author of the article in the OP that it does.
edit on 2/9/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I'm not sure what's left to discuss here.

The article linked in the OP misrepresents the "studies" that supposedly support the inane thesis of the article that got copied as the title of this thread.

I would have thought, as I said previously, that any reasonable person would have looked at that and known that it was garbage after a bit of thought and a modicum of research.

I mean, think about the fundamental thesis there ... that there is some verifiable and consistent difference between "those who believe in conspiracy theories" and "those who don't."

How do you even start to measure that? Which conspiracies? Have we all agreed on a list? What about those who accept some and reject others ... how do they count? How does one determine, by the very definition of a conspiracy, who was ultimately right about it? If one was right about a conspiracy, but wrong about the outcome, does that one count too?

C'mon folks.

(By the way, a bit more research indicates that even the real study referenced came under fire from other scholars because of it's methodology ... so, mmm. There's that.)
edit on 7Sun, 09 Feb 2014 07:46:53 -060014p072014266 by Gryphon66 because: Pluralism



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
No. I disagree on the title as a whole.

Sure there can be numbers to compare apples and oranges but everyone is a little bit insane at times and completely normal another depending on the application of their own drawn thoughts and the reaction by those who had the opportunity to witness their view points, whatever that might be.

Dissidence comes from both sides much like the two party governments of which seem to be failing remarkably world-wide. See.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
you say both sides are equally violent, but how many wars has truthers started compared to those who side with the government?



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   

filosophia
you say both sides are equally violent, but how many wars has truthers started compared to those who side with the government?


Are you saying here that people who disagree with the 911 Truth Movement have started wars?

I'm not sure I follow your logic.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

filosophia
you say both sides are equally violent, but how many wars has truthers started compared to those who side with the government?


Considering most wars are started by the government, I'd say none?

Revolutions aren't wars, they are the pursuit of justice.

ETA: Oh I guess you were meaning the opposite. Then yes, those who stand by the government could be considered to have indirectly promoted wars just like we have seen after 911.
edit on 9-2-2014 by St0rD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by St0rD
 




Then yes, those who stand by the government could be considered to have indirectly promoted wars just like we have seen after 911.

How so?
I knew from the beginning that the invasion of Iraq made no sense. I knew that it had nothing to do with the 911 attack. I knew the pictures of "mobile chem labs" were nonsense. I was against going to war.

I don't "stand by the government" but that doesn't mean I think that the narrative about 911 is a fabrication. That doesn't mean that I think Boston was a false flag. That doesn't mean that I think Sandy Hook was a false flag.

edit on 2/9/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by St0rD
 




Then yes, those who stand by the government could be considered to have indirectly promoted wars just like we have seen after 911.

How so?
I knew from the beginning that the invasion of Iraq made no sense. I knew that it had nothing to do with the 911 attack. I knew the pictures of "mobile chem labs" were nonsense. I was against going to war.


I don't suppose you shared this view publicly at the time? If you did, I'd love to see your post, thread or blog.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well in this case you should not feel concerned.

I'm talking about those who follow blindly what the government says or do. That's what this thread was about from the start: government dupes.

Being simple minded in a time of war, just like the one in the middle east that was voted by half americans and killed thousands of people because they could not think out of the box and question official statements, isn't far from an indirect guilt of murder.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Gryphon66

filosophia
you say both sides are equally violent, but how many wars has truthers started compared to those who side with the government?


Are you saying here that people who disagree with the 911 Truth Movement have started wars?

I'm not sure I follow your logic.


You are definitely no following his logic.

His simple and to the point comment was thusly: there is an argument on this thread that there are extremes on both sides of the divide. Another words equal wackos trumpeting both sides. The posters argument to this was: How many truthers (911 or otherwise) are responsible for starting wars of aggression. I didn't think it was that hard to follow, but that's just me and who knows maybe I'm wrong too.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Rosinitiate
 

From 2003? No, sorry. I wrote to my "representatives" and made my opinion known.

Do you think that threads, posts, and blogs about conspiracies are more effective? I must say I don't see any evidence of that.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join