reply to post by Phage
I think though, that it can get individuals who are less than stable worked up to the point of becoming a danger to others by taking matters into
their own hands.
I thought you only dealt in facts. What do you base your "becoming a danger to others" comment on?
Here the abstract
Recent research into the psychology of conspiracy belief has highlighted the importance of belief systems in the acceptance or rejection of conspiracy
theories. We examined a large sample
of conspiracist (pro-conspiracy-theory) and conventionalist (anti-conspiracy-theory) comments on news
websites in order to investigate the relative importance of promoting alternative explanations vs. rejecting conventional explanations for events. In
accordance with our hypotheses, we found that conspiracist commenters were more likely
to argue against the opposing interpretation and less
to argue in favor of their own interpretation, while the opposite was true of conventionalist commenters.
However, conspiracist comments were more likely
to explicitly put forward an account than conventionalist comments were. In addition,
conspiracists were more likely to express mistrust and made more
positive and fewer
negative references to other conspiracy theories.
The data also indicate that conspiracists were largely unwilling to apply the “conspiracy theory” label to their own beliefs and objected when
others did so, lending support to the long-held suggestion that conspiracy belief carries a social stigma. 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 generalized rejection of official explanations.
Very scientific words!
How far did you go down the rabbit hole. I notice no statistics in the abstract
“Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” Again how many individuals does this represent and
how many comments per poster. See these are the facts you should be questioning
This is the Title of OP
New study: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy
This is OPS main premise
"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."
"Can you point out what facts I have distorted?"
Lets talk about your chice of words "saner" "blow things up" hmm emotive much
or how about this
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
Real investigators because they started with a "conspiracy theory" got the facts went through a lot of hurdles and published. I see the game you're
So that means Scientific theorists who go on to prove their theories are no longer scientist but real scientists...
You may fool some of the people Phage but hehe.....