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

page: 9
43
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Here is the page for the published study referenced in the OP linked article: "What happened to building 7 ... "

This is the abstract of the study that you guys are quoting from, not the study itself:



“What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories

Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas

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 likely 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.


Here's the official synopsis at the University of Kent homepage (where the study was conducted): U of Kent

A telling quote:



The research, conducted by Dr Michael Wood and Dr Karen Douglas analysed online comment sections of over 2000 news articles from the latter half of 2011 that relate to the collapse of the World Trade Center. A well-known conspiracy theory proposes that this event was an “inside job”, perpetrated by the United States government.

Results of the analysis showed that anti-conspiracy comments most often argued in favour of their own explanation of the incident. On the other hand, pro-conspiracy comments were more likely to argue against the opposing explanation. The researchers argue that this reflects a psychological difference between people who support conspiracy theories and people who support official accounts.


You will find that the study does not in any way, shape, form or fashion refer to either side as "dupes."

You will find that the study does not in any way, shape, form or fashion refer to either side as mentally ill.

Essentially, this study says that 1) those who argue for conspiracy theories offer critique rather than alternative explanations and 2) those who argue for the official story offer support of that explanation as opposed to critiquing it.

Not exactly a profound finding, but that is what the study found nonetheless.



Dr. Barrett's article from Press TV cited in the OP is repeatedly dishonest.




posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by 8675309jenny
 




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


Exactly. The word conspiracy immediately bring a sense of a paranoid mind for most people.

It's ironic when you take into consideration the 9/11 official story is actually a conspiracy theory against the middle east. A conspiracy which, surprisingly, only came to fruition in a couple of days, if not hours. But wait a minute, what am I saying? It's officially stated by the United States AND the MSM, so that must be true.


It's even more ironic when you look at what happened in Syria last year. The U.S government claiming that the government of Syria willingly attacked his own people even if in the end they had no tangible proofs of it. They were even ready to start an offensive in order to bring justice and order. So let's recap: a 9/11 conspiracy is impossible in America but possible anywhere else in the world, right?

What should we conclude from this? When a theory, which deviates from the original one, is directed at the USA, it is immediately classified as a conspiracy theory (or in the case of Snowden, as an unforgivable treason), but when it is directed at another country, and especially stated by the USA, or any superpower for that matter, that must definitely be an irrefutable truth.

That doesn't sound right in my mind. Not. At. All.
edit on 10-2-2014 by St0rD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   

St0rD
reply to post by 8675309jenny
 




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


Exactly. The word conspiracy immediately bring a sense of a paranoid mind for most people.

It's ironic when you take into consideration the 9/11 official story is actually a conspiracy theory against the middle east. A conspiracy which, surprisingly, only came to fruition in a couple of days, if not hours. But wait a minute, what am I saying? It's officially stated by the United States AND the MSM, so that must be true.


It's even more ironic when you look at what happened in Syria last year. The U.S government claiming that the government of Syria willingly attacked his own people even if in the end they had no tangible proofs of it. They were even ready to start an offensive in order to bring justice and order. So let's recap: a 9/11 conspiracy is impossible in America but possible anywhere else in the world, right?

What should we conclude from this? When a theory, which deviates from the original one, is directed at the USA, it is immediately classified as a conspiracy theory (or in the case of Snowden, as an unforgivable treason), but when it is directed at another country, and especially stated by the USA, or any superpower for that matter, that must definitely be an irrefutable truth.

That doesn't sound right in my mind. Not. At. All.
edit on 10-2-2014 by St0rD because: (no reason given)


PRECISELY.


In reality, nearly any organized crime could be prosecuted as 'conspiracy' but I believe the term most people are truly seeking when they say "conspiracy theory" is "diabolical plan".

And I personally believe not many things actually are some DIABOLICAL GOVERNMENT PLAN.

In actuality even things that ARE seemingly gov't conspiracies, have often been shown to be the result of one or two people within an organization with access to the right resources.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You don't feel...that those you named...who dealt with uncovering theories of a conspiratorial nature...to be conspiracy theorists?
Is that what you meant...that's what you said....so I'm guessing that's what you meant???

Phage I've been visiting this site for about 4 years and always found 99.9% of the time you are one of the sites most highly intelligent members...
But this...? Stop it pal. Just stop it!!!

Peace.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
A lot of "mental illness" accusations flying about!
That's disheartening!

If you yourself haven't experienced something then you have no say in certain things.
You certainly don't have the right to label someone "mental" if you have never experienced what they have.
At least not without being seen as a closed minded jerk off.

I'm not saying everything is a conspiracy. Far from it.
But the majority of "official stories" are highly dubious and unlikely.
Doesn't mean the theories flying around are true, that's why they are debunked.
However the theory that does fit is still probably to be uncovered!

Back to my original point, the "mental health" label is overused and only a small percentage of mental health problems lead to an unreasonable cognitive thinking.
However many mental health problems do not effect people's judgment when it comes to understanding when lies are being told by either a shifty government official or an irrational conspiracy theorist.

I may have undifferentiated schizophrenia... but I'm not an idiot.
I (and many other mental health sufferers) can still smell the manure in the rose bush!

Peace.
edit on 10-2-2014 by CharlieSpeirs because: Auto-Correct!
edit on 10-2-2014 by CharlieSpeirs because: Auto-Correct!



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by CharlieSpeirs
 


But this...? Stop it pal. Just stop it!!!
Stop what?
Stop pointing out that the study which is the subject of the thread does not say that "government dupes" are crazy? Stop pointing out that the study which is the subject of this thread does not address the sanity of anyone?

It would seem like I'm supporting your position:

A lot of "mental illness" accusations flying about!
That's disheartening!

I'm not the one saying anyone is mentally ill.
edit on 2/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by The GUT
 

I haven't said there are no conspiracies.
I am not a cheerleader for Monsanto.

How about you stop with the ad hominems?

I've argued my points. Adjectives are a necessary bonus. Name ONE conspiracy--or instance of malfeasance--you suspect today. One.

Then tell us again how bio-engineering is safe and how the small farmer is the real culprit for buying them seeds.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


Name ONE conspiracy--or instance of malfeasance--you suspect today. One.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Then tell us again how bio-engineering is safe and how the small farmer is the real culprit for buying them seeds.
How far off topic are you going to go?
I have said that I haven't seen evidence that GM crops are not safe. I have never said that small farmers are culprits.


edit on 2/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
ENOUGH OF THE PERSONAL ATTACKS DISCUSS THE TOPIC NOT EACH OTHER. ANY POST NOT ON TOPIC WILL BE REMOVED

Thank you.
gallopinghordes
ATS member and mod



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


No pal, you've misunderstood my point.
I actually agree the "study" was biased and distorted.
I also never said you called anyone mental, that was a separate post designed to highlight that a lot of comments seemed to have been sending the "mentally Ill" accusation around as if that's relevant or correct.
I actually feel it has nothing to do with conspiracy theory and is just an easy way to talk down to people, or discredit their opinions. Despite the fact mental illness doesn't necessarily mean less intelligent nor understanding. Which makes it very offensive and equally shows how ill informed some people are when it comes to mental health.

What I actually meant by "stop it" was referring to the question I asked you!
You can't seriously believe that the gentlemen you mentioned were not conspiracy theorists if they uncovered conspiracies by following a certain line of theory to gauge that conclusion.
Whether they are real journalists or not, occupation/profession does not define those who theorise conspiracy.
Snowden worked for the NSA, Ventura was a Navy Seal and Governor. They are still within the parameters of a conspiracy theorist.

Like I said you are actually highly intelligent, and personally I thought you said what you did just to wind people up a bit.
Not maliciously though. More to rouse a response.

Of course I may be incorrect in my assumptions. If that's the case I apologise.

Peace.
edit on 10-2-2014 by CharlieSpeirs because: Auto-Correct!



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I'm assuming that the "What happened to ..." study remains of interest here, since it was referred to in the OP's flawed article.

(1) From the "Results" section of the actual study (Link to Study)



Analysis revealed a number of differences between the rhetorical styles of conspiracist and conventionalist commenters. Thirty-one percent of conspiracist comments contained information that constituted support for their own position, compared to 56% of conventionalist comments. This difference was significant, χ2(1) = 121.69, p < 0.001. In contrast, 64% of conspiracist comments involved derogation of the opposing explanation, significantly more than the 44% of conventionalist comments that did the same, χ2(1) = 80.13, p < 0.001.


(2) From the "Discussion" section: (same link, further down the page):



Most notably, and in accordance with the idea that opposition to officialdom is a major component of the conspiracist belief system, conspiracy advocates showed a tendency to spend much more time arguing against the official explanation of 9/11 than advocating an alternative. Conspiracy opponents showed the opposite pattern, advocating their own explanation more than they argued against the opposing one. This pattern of results supports the idea that conspiracy theories have their basis more in opposition to officialdom than in beliefs in specific alternative theories (Dean, 2002; Wood et al., 2012). For the adherents of the 9/11 Truth Movement examined here, the search for truth consists mostly of finding ways in which the official story cannot be true. There is much less of a focus on defending coherent explanations that can better account for the available evidence.


First of all, let me say that in general, I find the appellations "Conspiracist" and "Conventionalist" to be useless except in certain specified circumstances; they create a false dichotomy when applied to real people in the real world.

However, (1) above seems to suggest that in this study, those who favor "conspiracy" theories are less likely to provide evidence for their claims, and in general, only present assumed flaws in the opposing explanations of events.

(2) Suggests that "conspiracists" are primarily opposed to any "official" declarations and explanations, more so than they are opposed to any given explanation of events, i.e., if the Government says it, it's wrong somehow.

Also, (2) suggests that "conspiracists" are more likely to attempt to find fault than to offer alternate explanations that account for the available evidence.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
As far as mental illness is concerned for truthers you must remember the distinctions between neurotic and psychotic. For instance Histrionic personality disorder (HPD) can be found in it's somewhat harmless neurosis as some one who post the most disgusting and sick pictures on the internet just so people will take notice of this person. Also, it fails to matter if, or not, this person agrees with the post-the need for attention is fulfilled by being called out in a singular fashion. Cyber bulling falls with the constraints of HPD as an attention seeker who see being called out a good thing-and what ever punishment is also part of the ability to present themselves in a more serious form which is IAD.

However, the psychotic form of this illness, in which the person has lost any context of reality, and the need for attention now draws upon-killing or suicide, or mass killing for that matter. A good example would be Mark David Chapman, the idiot who, in the mist of psychosis shot John Lennon.

The distinctions can be seen again in such persons-who in early years of the Internet were called double dippers or posers-as a way they get attention by arguing with them selves by having 2 or more memberships to any one group. The psychotic form of the illness seems to represent itself in murder/suicide the final attention they want to receive.

Internet addiction disorder (IAD) the need for attention presents itself in an actual, diagnosable mental health disorder.While it is histrionic in nature the neurotic IAD individual seeks, not only attention, but fame and recognition that they see in people-no better than themselves they think-and this is not only being recognized, but also better than any one else.

In the sad psychotic state they find that not only internet addiction, but the addiction of being called better than everyone else, has taken over their lives. The only reality they have left is misrepresented in all the different personalities they have spread, however now they can't seem to make a judgement of who they really are. This can be seen in persons who blame their 'other half' as the one who committed violence.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
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

www.frontiersin.org...

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 likely 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.

oh dear...

large
more likely
less likely
more likely
more
fewer

Very scientific words!


How far did you go down the rabbit hole. I notice no statistics in the abstract
from
www.presstv.ir...

“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."


from yourself:
"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 investigators."


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 playing now.

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.....



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight
 


The direct link to the complete study is provided above. Why not take a look at the whole thing?

Academics do not typically provide their statistics in the Abstract of a paper.

The paper was linked to from the OP article. The OP article completely misrepresented what the paper said.

The science involved in "social science" is different from the far more quantifiable physical sciences.

No subsequent member of this discussion brought the paper to light as an example of any point; it's what we were faced with, at least, those of us who "smelled the rat" in the article linked in the OP.

There's a reason that Dr. Barrett (the author of the original linked article that provided the title of the thread) had to give up the classroom for hack political commentary, in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


My bad, I see now




had to give up the classroom for hack political commentary, in my opinion.


hmm...yes I concur





top topics
 
43
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join