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

reply to post by Phage

Phage

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

That answer would be irrelevant to the fact that the author of the study validates
the finding in the OP article. So, I have no idea why you are trying to go
down that path, ( well actually I do ) you could easily state your opinion
as you often do and declare it to be a valid argument.

Your post in the thread here, appears to be misleading.
Why did you say that the article "complete distorts"
when that is NOT what the author says then?

Phage
reply to post by St0rD

 

That's right. The article in the OP is about a study and it complete distorts what the study found.

reply to post by burntheships

Why did you say that the article "complete distorts"

Because the article says:

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.

www.presstv.ir...

The study does not say that. It is a complete distortion and is, in fact, a fabrication.

reply to post by Phage


Do you know the meaning of the word "complete" ?

The author of the study even validates that
some parts are correct.

reply to post by burntheships

One point.
Hostility.
Do you equate hostility with insanity? If you do I suppose you could say that one point is not a distortion.

Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

One point.
Hostility.
Do you equate hostility with insanity? If you do I suppose you could say that one point is not a distortion.

It seems clear to me that the author validates that point.

reply to post by burntheships

It seems clear to me that the author validates that point.

That conspiricists are more sane than "government dupes?" That's the title and thrust of the article.
Interesting that you can interpret it that way. Not surprising. But interesting.

reply to post by Phage

You're the one making this unproductive and irrelevant. No matter what we say you always seem to find the right technique to assure you have the last word, huh? Are you even considering what I'm trying to say?

It just feel like I'm only talking to myself in the end.
Maybe is there a study for that too?

reply to post by St0rD

Yes. I am considering what you have to say. Just as I consider what other conspiricists have to say. If you think it's unproductive and irrelevant you might try thinking a little harder about it.

You cite an article about a study. An article which misrepresents the study. You acknowledge that the article misrepresents the study but go on to say that anti-conspiricists just blindly accept the official story while ignoring the fact that conspiricists blindly reject the official story. You claim that you look at both sides but continually say that your main point of contention is that the OS comes from the government. That does not sound like you are taking an unbiased view.

It just feel like I'm only talking to myself in the end.

Have I failed to respond to what you have said or do you just discount what I have said because it doesn't fit your worldview?

I've come to really laugh at people who try to marginalize any doubt of an official story by saying something like "oh so it's a conspiracy huh?" The hilarious part is that yes, nearly every major event in history WAS a "conspiracy" by VERY DEFINITION because the word only means that more than one person worked together on it.

Tell me, honestly here now; what major event in history that has the slightest bit of disagreement over what really happened, did NOT involve 2 or more people???

I have a very small company building and selling mostly 1 product and still to get anything done requires the efforts of at least about 6people on any given week...


This is PRECISELY why the myth of the 'lone gunman' is all the more laughable when it comes to anything other than hackjob amateur hour crap.

In the common vernacular "conspiracy theory" has come to mean any idea that deviates from the MSM. LOL keep on drinkin that kool-aid...

reply to post by St0rD


As "one in the middle" myself, this study hardly surprises me. It's far healthier to challenge ideas than to accept them blindly, no matter what the circumstances. I'd rather people question authority ALWAYS than simply obey indiscriminately, any day of the week, whatever the social consequences.

We deserve to know the truth; and those who speak out publicly on social issues (such as the 'mainstream media') generally have an agenda, lest they would surely keep silent. Because... why should they care? People in positions of authority don't talk about current affairs for no reason, and they certainly don't do it out of the kindness of their hearts and a genuine desire to keep people in the know. They do it because they're on damage control 24/7 to protect a dying System of inequity and lies.

Trust no one; love everyone. That's the maxim that I live by. You can't go wrong if you live like that. But then maybe I'm just crazy and paranoid. After all, the government is just trying to keep me safe and provide me with the means to attain happiness, right? Since they care about me so much.

reply to post by Rosinitiate


Your in-depth opinionated analysis of the minutiae of my post is noted. Still off-topic, but noted.

I wish I could relate how blindingly uninterested I am in your efforts to walk the edge of insult in your post. I'm sure that brings you some sort of personal joy ... but really only serves to make your post look asinine.

You can't speak for the poster to whom I responded. They made a general post, I made a specific reply. You inserted yourself because you seem to conceive that the pedantic desultory tone in your posts makes you a "good citizen" in some way. That hasn't offended me, but I'm sure the conversation could have done without such trivia.

The real point here is that there are not only "two types" of people who correspond about these topics, either here at ATS or on the wider internet. Yet, that was the proposal of the original article and even when that was clearly demonstrated as a sham ... the conversation went on here with various axe-grinding and other egoic showboating.

We either deal with matters as consistently and rationally as we are able, or we don't.

We either do our best to find the most reliable facts regarding a topic, or we don't.

We either use critical thinking and life experiences to winnow the spare grain from the abundant chaff, or we don't.

8675309jenny
I've come to really laugh at people who try to marginalize any doubt of an official story by saying something like "oh so it's a conspiracy huh?" The hilarious part is that yes, nearly every major event in history WAS a "conspiracy" by VERY DEFINITION because the word only means that more than one person worked together on it.

Tell me, honestly here now; what major event in history that has the slightest bit of disagreement over what really happened, did NOT involve 2 or more people???

I have a very small company building and selling mostly 1 product and still to get anything done requires the efforts of at least about 6people on any given week...


This is PRECISELY why the myth of the 'lone gunman' is all the more laughable when it comes to anything other than hackjob amateur hour crap.

In the common vernacular "conspiracy theory" has come to mean any idea that deviates from the MSM. LOL keep on drinkin that kool-aid...

And yet ... if EVERYTHING is a conspiracy, is anything, really?

I think you have to admit that there is a certain category of folks that see EVERYTHING that happens as conspiratorial. For example, I saw someone today wonder if anti-smoking campaigns were in place because nicotine might somehow interfere with HAARP.

I mean ... come on now ... surely there is some reasonable limit between mere imagination and rationality must be drawn, right?

per 9/11...when the government won't release any footage from any of the security cameras both private and governmental showing the plane hitting the pentagon...to me that is an absolute 100% sign of a cover-up...it's really pretty simple, not that hard to understand, if the plane hit the pentagon show all Americans, all of the different camera shots of the event. for anyone that believes the official story, not showing all of these different and diverse camera shots, is the exact opposite of what should have happened.

Wow really?
OP, maybe you should change the title of the thread to "All about Phage".

8 pages in and around 50% of the replies are from Phage.

I have been on here just as long, but 15 posts per day average? wow

How can anyone have any experience in life to bring forth enlightenment with that?

Anyways. The jest of the OP is that Conspiracy theorists are just asking questions as to just being crazy.

And one last thing to Phage, I have learned from you over the years, but I also found out I have to put a filter on it.

Gryphon66
reply to post by Rosinitiate

 

Your in-depth opinionated analysis of the minutiae of my post is noted. Still off-topic, but noted.

Off-topic how? The thread is about government dupes. My post that I had reiterated, that you failed to answer the original poster and myself. Is a paid shill responsible for wars when they blindly support wars of aggression? No tip-toeing there. Just a straight up answer.

I wish I could relate how blindingly uninterested I am in your efforts to walk the edge of insult in your post. I'm sure that brings you some sort of personal joy ... but really only serves to make your post look asinine.

Perhaps my original post was too blunt for you. Any edgy response thereafter was in relation to your hostility. I actually had no beef with you just surprised you didn't understand the posters point.

You can't speak for the poster to whom I responded.

How come? Even if it wasn't the original posters point, it is now my point. Care to answer?

They made a general post, I made a specific reply. You inserted yourself because you seem to conceive that the pedantic desultory tone in your posts makes you a "good citizen" in some way. That hasn't offended me, but I'm sure the conversation could have done without such trivia.

The only trivia I asked thus far to you was "Is a paid shill responsible for wars when they blindly support wars of aggression?"

The real point here is that there are not only "two types" of people who correspond about these topics, either here at ATS or on the wider internet. Yet, that was the proposal of the original article and even when that was clearly demonstrated as a sham ... the conversation went on here with various axe-grinding and other egoic showboating.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't about just "two-types, rather just those two types are being discussed within the confines of this OP.

We either deal with matters as consistently and rationally as we are able, or we don't.

We either do our best to find the most reliable facts regarding a topic, or we don't.

We either use critical thinking and life experiences to winnow the spare grain from the abundant chaff, or we don't.

So you are saying what here? Because you don't believe the study all supporters of the official line are sane? I feel there are ignorant people who don't research and believe what they're told and I also believe there are government paid trolls. It's the trolls that concern me, because at times they support wars that serve their masters while enslaving the people. To me that makes them dupes and traitors.

What an interesting thread. All sorts of folks upset at the voice of reason.

**ARGUE WITH THE MESSAGE NOT THE MESSENGER **

Phage brings facts to a discussion. It's up to the opposing side to bring facts to dispute his. It's called a "discussion".

If you loose the argument, you don't have to like it, but you will have to accept it, or bring some better facts the next time.
At least that's how I see the adults doing it.

FirePiston

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

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

Wow all he did was point out......oh never mind.

reply to post by Rosinitiate


How many times do you feel like you need to be answered? I mean, I can see that you think your position is really important, but ... how many?

Paid shill? When did that become an aspect of the question? Oh, wait that's right, you can wrap reality around your screen scroll.

Were I to make a guess about "paid posters" I'd say that it would more likely be someone who distracts from the topic, posts "much ado about nothing" and then continues to do so to no end.

But that's just me.

There are never only two options. Beware the one who insists there is.

FINIS

reply to post by Gryphon66

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)

She has my vote to run the reserve banks of the world!
She could hardly do any more harm to the people then
those running it now!