Belief in Conspiracies Linked to Machiavellian Mindset

Conspiracies are just like religion.
They usually blind people from seeing the truth.
In religion people assert whats in their holy book as fact.

In conspiracies they become half ass skeptics.

they're to lazy to search for absolute truth.

Think about future implications these studies can cause?

We found weapons of Mass destruction. (Study) (Next) Invasion of Irak (Still all ongoing expanding)

We found a condition 'Machiavellian Mindset '(Study) (Next) >>>>>>>>>>>??? Does not have good out look my feelings say

Just think about it. Lets try to find the founder of the Study. Who initiated it .? Where came the money from?
Lobbyist from bank/governments?

reply to post by PjZ101

What a bunch of crap. Sounds like misinformation to me. Its too bad these pseudo doctors cant use their skills for something worth while in the world other than characterizing and judging people based on extremely small samplings and lumping everyone into that group. i think these quacks are the ones with low morality and have an inclination to participate in "conspiracy theories".

I think this is a bit harsh. They didn't lump everyone together, just some. Do you honestly think these little folks are disinfo agents? Pseudo doctors? Quacks?

As a direction of thought, I found the article very reasonable, though as you say very limited.

Lets try to find the founder of the Study. Who initiated it .? Where came the money from?
Lobbyist from bank/governments?

It would seem that some people really want to believe in conspiracies.

I love conspiracy theory but I have to be convinced by logical arguments and facts, I don't just believe it because it's on the internet.

Many people on this site seem to regurgitate arguments that have proven to be false but they seem to cling to them because they can't accept facts that disprove they favorite conspiracy theories.

So for all on this site remember Deny Ignorance.

Don't let them tell us what we have.
WE ARE R-EVOLUTION-ARIES

Lets try to find the founder of the Study. Who initiated it .? Where came the money from?
Lobbyist from bank/governments?

Know any conspiracy theorists?
No doubt they’ve tried to convince you that man didn’t really land on the moon or President Obama was born in Kenya.
In fact, they were imparting genuinely interesting information — about themselves. New research suggests belief in such theories may reveal a Machiavellian mindset.

For asking legitimate questions you are being diagnose ' Machiavellian mindset' I can only wonder what will be done with these studies... I dont understand that anyone share's my concerns until this moment. So I could stand corrected

Let's check to see if the opposite is true, I have an example.

On Skeptoid, I've read numerous times in comments that "there are no conspiracies--just good-hearted politicians doing what they can and getting caught up in the bedlam that is politics".

Not only is this a very dangerous view to have, but lets apply it to this 'study'.

So, am I to believe that the person who wrote those comments has never "conspired" in their lifetime? Not once threw a surprise party for their friend or family member, kept a gift secretly despite numerous guesses on behalf of the receiver, knowingly kept a couple dollars overage a cashier mistakenly gave them, shared unflattering personal information about a coworker to higher ups...or ANYTHING that the average human has done in their lifetime?

We are all human, so the answer is...NO. We are all with fault, we are all capable of conspiracy involvement--voluntary or not.

This article seeks to point fingers at the accusers without merit.

I am involved in a conspiracy. Every paycheck I get has a CHUNK taken out of it. I have no idea where it goes, but still pay into it every two weeks. Despite my worries I continue to fuel the machine. So, in a way, I am complicit in one of the biggest conspiracies to date--the fleecing of the middle class taxpayer.

However, I'm not sure that's what this article was seeking to highlight.

"Takes one to know one" only works as deflection in childhood playground name-calling arguments. It rarely applies to real life...

Sorry if this post was scattered, coffee just kicked in.

They're just trying to repackage the defunct fantasy of projection.

It's a never ending and wholly useless circle of blame and deflection that only serves to obfuscate reality.

Or maybe that's just what I would do and am projecting it onto the shrinks who came up with this?

See what I mean?

Useless plea for grant money and peer prestige from a field that's as full on manure as the neighbors corn field.




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by TribeOfManyColours
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Hey do some of the comments in the thread of All NWO Agents...hold some truth in it. Cause for a long time I got a feeling you know more

These are not the droids you are looking for.

reply to post by TribeOfManyColours


Maybe. I know its not true for me personally. I left business school because I figured out that the way corporations did business was beyond immoral.

I personally think that the bottom line is you have to be able to connect the way the con works in order to recognize it as a con, or conspiracy, and I think only a percentage of the population can make those connections on their own.

From that percentage, many humans are more "self" interested than "group benefit" interested, and so the majority of the people able to see and make the connections would be willing to exploit it. But, I would argue that in truth, the majority of people UNABLE to see and make the connections would also exploit it, if they could see it. They just cant see it.

In short, they are mistaking correlation for cause. It just so happens that the majority of people will exploit a situation for their own gain, and so a majority of those able to see conspiracies would be willing to exploit them for their own gain, if they could. But you certainly do not need to have the inclination to exploit to see and make the connections.

Many highly ethical philosophers have seen and made the connections throughout history, and philosophers are famously considered "stupid" for not exploiting them.

www.thebigview.com...

In spite of his wisdom, Thales was a poor man. The inhabitants of Miletus ridiculed Thales for his philosophy and asked him what his wisdom is good for if it can't pay the rent.

"He was reproached for his poverty, which was supposed to show that philosophy is of no use. According to the story, he knew by his skills in the stars while it was yet winter that there would be a great harvest of olives in the coming year; so, having a little money, he gave deposits for the use of all olive-presses in Chios and Miletus, which he hired at a low price because no one bid against him.

When the harvest time came, and many were wanted all at once and of a sudden, he let them out at any rate which he pleased, and made a quantity of money. Thus he showed the world that philosophers can be rich if they like, but that their ambition is of another sort." [from "Politics", Aristotle]

I see opportunities to exploit people all the time. I just dont have the character to want to do so. Like Thales, the cost to the "soul" if you will of doing so is not worth the material gain, to me. Its why I left business school. I realized what it would cost me in terms of integrity to make a living at it, and decided it wasnt worth it to me.

Originally posted by Tharsis
Let's check to see if the opposite is true, I have an example.

Good idea. I believed before we invaded Iraq that it was not about 9-11, but rather, about economics and politics. (ie, Iraqi politics and Saddam's leadership was messing with western corporate desire to make lots of money)

Many of the people unwilling to acknowledge that the motives we as a nation had for invading Iraq were not good, when they found out, did not feel remorseful or outraged. (Some did,) Many who did not see the conspiracy up front were more than happy to reap what they perceived were benefits from the death of thousands upon thousands of innocent people. No moral high ground for them.

In short, they were not morally superior, they were too stupid and/or emotional to connect the dots in advance.

No funding statement.

Fulltext in 'Early View formatting'

jjjtir.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/j-2044-8309-2010-02018-x.pdf

dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02018.x or onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02018.x/abstract

British Journal of Social Psychology

Early View (Online Version of Record published before inclusion in an issue)

Brief report

Does it take one to know one? Endorsement
of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal
willingness to conspire

Karen M. Douglas∗ and Robbie M. Sutton
University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

We advance a new account of why people endorse conspiracy theories, arguing that
individuals use the social–cognitive tool of projection when making social judgements
about others. In two studies, we found that individuals were more likely to endorse
conspiracy theories if they thought they would be willing, personally, to participate
in the alleged conspiracies. Study 1 established an association between conspiracy
beliefs and personal willingness to conspire, which fully mediated a relationship between
Machiavellianism and conspiracy beliefs. In Study 2, participants primed with their own
morality were less inclined than controls to endorse conspiracy theories – a finding fully
mediated by personal willingness to conspire. These results suggest that some people
think ‘they conspired’ because they think ‘I would conspire’.

(...)

Were the September 11 attacks orchestrated by the United States government? Was Diana, Princess of Wales murdered?

(...)

Thus, for example, they may be less likely to dismiss the hypothesis that AIDS was created by government scientists if they believe that they personally would be willing to create it. In this way, the observer's perception that ‘I would do it’ informs his or her perception that ‘they did it’.

(...)

For each item, participants were asked to rate the likelihood that, if they were in the position of the alleged conspirators, they would have participated in the actions (e.g., ‘If you were in the position of the government, would you have ordered the attack on the Twin Towers?’ from 1 (never under any circumstances) to 7 (probably yes).

(...)

Acknowledgements

We thank Mitch Callan for his helpful comments on this paper.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
It would seem that some people really want to believe in conspiracies.

I believe in conspiracies as the definition of a conspiracy is 2 or more people CONSPIRING against....etc

I think people tend to use the word conspiracy interchangeably with a cover-up or some anomaly ...

Originally posted by Wildbob77
So for all on this site remember Deny Ignorance.

I think that's because many have drawn the conclusion that to Deny Ignorance means to abandon common sense. I guess you can't have both.

I see some agreeing with the article but I do not at all
there's no takes one to know one

That's like saying every police officer is a criminal because that's what they search for

As far as i'm concerned it's not my fault that many conspiracy theories exist and then are proven as true
what does that have to do with me other than me suspecting it before the proof came out?

Now...... Think about this one!!!

There is a growing trend in the United States and in England where the powers that be are asking you to spy on your neighbours and you then have suspicions that your neighbour is a terrorist or a murderer
Do these suspicions make you also a potential terrorist or murderer?



Nobody should be agreeing with this article

There is the saying, "takes one to know one."


I agree that being familiar with the mentality helps you to see it in others. That doesn't mean it's all you. Our leaders do things that most intelligent ATS'ers would never have the heart to do and I don't think there will be much disagreement about that.

This is about creating a common perception of any person or group that dares to openly cite conspiracy as a real phenomenon.

It is along the lines of "you accuse noble people because you have a degenerate mind."

This will become more prevalent as time passes and more blatant sings of actual conspiracy arise into the public arena. Those identifying them will be vilified (because the prevalent ignorance holds that anything "Machiavellian" is a 'bad' thing).

Thus revisionism will kick in to redefine the conspirators of old (or today) into the heroes of the age.

reply to post by jjjtir


I don't disagree.

Though I find the way this is presented interesting.

The opposite is also true. People who never see anything wrong are projecting their morality - a set of learned and reinforced values - onto others. They simply cannot believe that anyone who do something like that.

I'm sure that not being able to comprehend a conspiracy, and not even wanting because it is a "bad" trait is far safer for conspirators.

I see you because I recognize you. I also recognize them. So if I recognize the conspirators AND those who cannot even imagine such a thing, which form of projection am I doing?

Some people are more complicated than what is implied here.

Originally posted by Aeons

The opposite is also true. People who never see anything wrong are projecting their morality - a set of learned and reinforced values - onto others. They simply cannot believe that anyone who do something like that.

Some of them are also just in denial of their own immorality. The study didnt even touch denial.

Many people who do not see anything wrong with what is going on, who do not see it as immoral, do not do so because THEY do stuff like that themselves on a smaller scale and cannot bear to think of themselves as "bad" people.