It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
But my experience is that when presented with a dissenting view and with evidence to support that view, the conspiracist if unable to provide a response will ignore the point or call me a shill.
The thing with blinded believers and why they might be less sane (only to an extent) is the fact that they have lost the ability to think by themselves on subjects of capital importance.
Yes, conspiracists always question the official version. But the study noticed that they didn't seem to care a lot about the details.
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.
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 generalized rejection of official explanations.
Your welcome is a bit belated. I've been here for a while now.
Hard to tell with the wittle-bitty tears in your eyes.
I care about the quality of their arguments.
Calling an opponent a shill (or a crybaby) doesn't really make their position stronger. It's a logical fallacy commonly resorted to by conspiracists. It's called an ad hominem.
Rather than just questioning the "OS", wouldn't it make more sense to question both sides of the story? Equally? Reasonably?
Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were
not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well.......
Apart from the reference to the earlier statistical debacle,
this characterisation of the hostility finding is correct
reply to post by jimmyx
I'm surprised at you phage
The only study I have quoted is the the one misrepresented by the article in the OP. You were perfectly happy to accept that study when you thought it said something that it doesn't. But now you don't? Interesting.
You've been providing quotes of anti-conspirationist studies all thread long trying to prove your point. Doesn't sound right in my head.
Upon what do you base your assumption that "anti-conspiricists" don't look at both sides of the argument? Do you consider that they may find the conspiricists' arguments lacking? Are there "blind" anti-conspiricists? Sure. Are there "blind" conspiricists? Yup. So why bother bringing either one up? They are marginal. They don't matter. Right? Ignore 'em.
I think you are missing the point here: blind anti-conspirationist are the ones who don't look at both sides of the story.
Just an aside, I see that several times in this thread you continue
to entirely marginalize the OP article, when in fact the link
you gave to "prove" that actually says otherwise.
Apart from the reference to the earlier statistical debacle, this characterisation of the hostility finding is correct (ADDED 29/07: though we don’t attribute this to personality differences as Barrett seems to; see this post for further discussion). The interpretation of the other finding is unusual and perhaps overstates the case (there was no measure of “fanaticism” in the study, unless defending a position you agree with is inherently fanatical) but this isn’t an unreasonable interpretation otherwise – it’s a question of values I suppose.
See, there you go again. Avoid the discussion and resort to ad hominem arguments. You seem to do it without realizing it. Habit?
An air of superiority is one of the tools in your kit. You are plenty rude and passive aggressive. You throw around "conspiracy theorist" as a slam...just like the gubmint stooges.
reply to post by Rosinitiate
What are you trying to accomplish? You're merely bickering about nothing. Do you have a response to my comment, or did you just want to get in some screentime and appear to be saying something significant?
So ... why ride in to try to defend that point?
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.
Next, Barrett turns to the actual findings of the study:
Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”
Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. 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. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”
Apart from the reference to the earlier statistical debacle, this characterisation of the hostility finding is correct
They may look into it but they won't ever really consider conspiracy theories to be true.
I know a lot of conspiricists who claim that anyone who believes the "official story" is just a government dupe. See how easy that is? See how unproductive it is?
I know of a lot of anti-conspirationist who claim that conspiracies are only made for lunatics.