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

Found this little bit rather interesting.

Before I post anything...let me state for the record...I'm not in favor of the official story line...

Linky

The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

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.

You don't say....

Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11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.”

"those damned fool conspiracy sites"...

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.”

It's not about what happened...it's about what didn't....

DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime.

I'm sure you guys will find if this research is verifiable...I didn't have time to go in to it.

Anyway...have fun

Depends on the topic of the conspiracy.. I don't think the vast majority are valid... my personal opinion.. I'm not questioning their sanity however.. they are thinkers for sure.. sometimes, over thinking.

Questioning the status quo does not make one less intelligent or mentally unfit. I agree with another poster - some people over think things or generalize that if one thing leaves room for questions everything must be corrupt. Good to see studies being done on it. Otherwise people go on assumptions.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


There have been many conspiracy theories that have become conspiracy fact (such as NSA spying on our phone calls). There are still those who, in the face of incontrovertible evidence, still dismiss things as conspiracy theory. When you are presented clear, verifiable, accepted evidence and you still dismiss it as 'conspiracy theory' you might actually be insane.

To be fair most "conspiracy theorists" are actually discussing real world events based on solid evidence these days , more "researchers" than "theorists". I think the fact that the masses generally think "lunatic" as soon as they hear the words conspiracy theorist , is enough evidence to prove that conspiracy theorists are more sane than those who oppose them .

Also , Conspiracy Theorists don`t really have little tags and sound bites , like debunkers do ......... "troofers"

In fact , there is more effort globally to discredit theories than there is to create and research them .

We need a website for conspiracy theorists alone , where any debunkers and general idiots are instantly banned.

I was under the impression that those who didn't follow the official line were now regarded as extremists and or terrorists.

So that will be sane terrorists at least.

Always known that, its criminally insane to not question and notice the inconsistencies. To actually endorse the asshat criminals running our world.

Yes.

It's insane to want references, science and proof when we are told something that doesn't make any sense at all.

I think picking apart a story that feels or sounds weird makes conspiracy theorists interesting and wonderful.

The ATS radio show last night, about the Russian Expedition that froze to death, is one such story. It was brilliantly laid out, fact by fact, with each possible explanation explored. I loved it.

I come across some theories on the ATS site that I am completely unable to wrap my brain around, though. But, reading them and seeing a point-of-view that is so incredibly abstract to me just makes me a more open-minded and curious person.

I think conspiracy theorists would have been war or defense strategists, village elders, advisors to chiefs, emperors and czars, things like that in ancient times. Complete 180 of how they are viewed today.

Sorry for the weird rant. Nice OP. Interesting to think about.