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

Phage
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.

Of course that happens. Happens to many of us in some form. Wah. Just don't lump all of us together. I'm not afraid to speak my piece when I hear some outlandish conspiracy, nor am I deterred from pointing out other forms of small-mindedness and attempts to trivialize matters that I think are important.

I've learned from you--mostly in the realm of science as it relates to ufology--but nothing I can think of outside of that. You don't see yourself as ever being an intellectual bully, but, apparently, do see yourself as a victim of name calling. Maybe there's a lesson for you in that?

I do understand that some of it's unfair and unwarranted, however. Welcome to the mosh pit.

reply to post by St0rD

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.

And yet, we have the very astute conspiracists who eagerly lap up tripe like the article in the OP because it supports their preconception. "See! It's not us that's crazy! Here's a study that says so!"

Sounds so good it has to be right. Right?
But it isn't. You just gobbled it up. Were you really thinking for yourself? Or were you just accepting what your side said about the study, no matter if it was valid. Are you really looking at it reasonably or are you letting your passion rule? Rather than just questioning the "OS", wouldn't it make more sense to question both sides of the story? Equally? Reasonably?

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.

Yes, conspiracists always question the official version. But the study noticed that they didn't seem to care a lot about the details.

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.

Is that something to be proud of?

reply to post by The GUT

I do understand that some of it's unfair and unwarranted, however. Welcome to the mosh pit.

Your welcome is a bit belated. I've been here for a while now.

reply to post by jimmyx

I'm surprised at you phage

Why?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Phage
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.

reply to post by The GUT

Hard to tell with the wittle-bitty tears in your eyes.

No tears. I really don't care what people call me.
I care about the quality of their arguments.
Calling an opponent a shill (or a crybaby) doesn't really make one's position stronger. It's a logical fallacy commonly resorted to by conspiracists. It's called an ad hominem. That's why I mention it, not because it hurts my feelings.

Phage
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.

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.

I care about the quality of my arguments. And I've seen many argue their positions with you in very impressive ways. They bounce off of you. In addition, you seem to be lumping us all together.

As far as the study this thread mentions: I know you have a point. As far as what I've been engaging you about is a whole other question. I think that was the OP's real point, although I could be wrong. I admit I took the opportunity to debate your general philosophy and how much you sound like some Scooter Libby propaganda about "conspiracy theorists."

Don't lump us all under an arbitrary term. MANY do their homework.

You seem to rely way too much on so-called studies. For my part, I've only provided the article in the OP so we could discuss about it. Now I'm giving my own opinions on this matter from my personal experience and knowledge.
What about you?

You've been providing quotes of anti-conspirationist studies all thread long trying to prove your point. Doesn't sound right in my head.

Rather than just questioning the "OS", wouldn't it make more sense to question both sides of the story? Equally? Reasonably?

Yes it would, and that's what I've always been doing. Questionning both sides of the coin.
I think you are missing the point here: blind anti-conspirationist are the ones who don't look at both sides of the story.

reply to post by Phage


I do find it entertaining that your pointing a finger about Ad hom
posts; as I could link you to your own posts over the years,
and your finger would be pointing right back at ya.

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.

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

conspiracypsychology.com...

Phage
reply to post by jimmyx

 

I'm surprised at you phage

Why?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

why?...uhmm, ok...fair enough, I rescind my rhetorical surprise. curiosity of questionable government statements pertaining to JFK and 9/11, which have had ample discussion here on ATS, and countless other sites, is something you have become bored with, or lack entirely. as a member who is skeptical of a lot of the flotsam surrounding these 2 events, I understand

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?

Does this pass for cogent discussion in your estimation?

Address the issue: the implication that you made echoed the earlier post about "Truthers" not starting wars implying that in some way "Conventionalists" (to use the term we've been bandying about) do. That's nonsense and I hope that's evident.

So ... why ride in to try to defend that point? Just send a U2U if you want to bicker with me.

Let's attempt to bring it back to the topic of this discussion: are you saying that you think that those (and again, it's a fallacious, meaningless term) who are labeled as "opposing" the average conspiracy theory have something directly to do with the wars that this country, or any country have started?


If so, have the courage of your conviction and say that outright instead of playing coy, eh?

reply to post by burntheships


Just out of curiosity, how much of the article did you cut out between those two statements you want to connect so closely?

Your ellipsis is unclear ... surely you're not trying to make it look like the article says something that it doesn't?

reply to post by St0rD

You've been providing quotes of anti-conspirationist studies all thread long trying to prove your point. Doesn't sound right in my head.

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.

I think you are missing the point here: blind anti-conspirationist are the ones who don't look at both sides of the story.

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.

BTW, I could argue that there aren't really any "anti-conspiricists", just those who don't accept the conspiricist worldview that, details be damned, if it comes from the government it must be a lie. No matter what it is.

reply to post by burntheships

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.

You still haven't shown where the study says that "Conspiracy theorists are sane, government dupes crazy".
And, as pointed out, you left out a bit of your external quote.

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.

Again, do you consider "hostility" to be a measure of insanity?

reply to post by The GUT

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.

See, there you go again. Avoid the discussion and resort to ad hominem arguments. You seem to do it without realizing it. Habit?

Gryphon66
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?

Maybe go back and reread the posts:

The original post you replied to was never engaged in a discussion with you, rather made a generic reply to the OP:

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

Your response came across presumptuous that the word "truthers" only meant 911 and acknowledged you couldn't follow the logic.

Gryphon66
Are you saying here that people who disagree with the 911 Truth Movement have started wars?

I'm not sure I follow your logic.

Me being the concerned citizen only wished to eliminate any confusion because for me there was none or at least provide a different POV since you couldn't "follow the logic". I'm sorry if that offended you. I recognize this thread requires brass knuckles with everyone being so passionate about their views.

To clarify my original point and likely the posters. He wasn't saying everyone who supports the OS are responsible, rather suggesting that there are government paid trolls that exist. Ergo responsible for wars.... I don't think the poster or even I......at the time, suspected you personally of anything. I'm not suggesting you sound guilty of anything.

reply to post by Phage


They may look into it but they won't ever really consider conspiracy theories to be true. It would mean for them to have to face a terrible truth and completely change the view of the world they live in. Having to face the possible reality that you've been living through an illusion all of your life isn't an easy task.

I know of a lot of anti-conspirationist who claim that conspiracies are only made for lunatics. They mean it like there was not any truth to it. Like the government could never do such things, even though history proves them wrong.

That's the kind of government dupes I'm referring to.

reply to post by Gryphon66


I did not cut out any of the article, the paragraph has been posted
in its entirely already, So for brevity sake that time I cut it short.
However since you have asked, here is the entire paragraph,
with the comment immediately following. Italics and bolding
my emphasis for clarity.

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

conspiracypsychology.com...



So again, the OP article is not entirely cast aside even by the author critiquing it.

reply to post by burntheships

You left out the little bit of edititorialization about "fanatically" though, didn't you?
Again, do you equate hostile with insane?

reply to post by St0rD

They may look into it but they won't ever really consider conspiracy theories to be true.

They may look into it but they won't ever really consider that the "official story" may be true. See how easy that is. See how irrelevant it is?

I know of a lot of anti-conspirationist who claim that conspiracies are only made for lunatics.

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?