The predictability of conspiracy theorists

[Godboy]

The next time there is mass shooting (in the US), or terrorist attack, or any major event where a lot of people die at the hands of another human being, the conspiracy theorists will invent a conspiracy to go along with it. I think its important to demonstrate the lunacy of the entire conspiracy movement. Mark my words, the next time one of these things happens, it wont be long before there is a thread about how the government did it , "its fake blood", blah blah blah.

I have no powers that allow me to see into the future, so how can it be so easy for me to predict this? The answer is simple.... conspiracy theorists are predictable.

All you conspiracy theorists can prove me wrong by shutting the fuck up the next time there is a tragedy., but I bet you cant do it. Making shit up and then convincing yourself that its true, is clearly one of your many personality flaws.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The next time there is mass shooting (in the US), or terrorist attack, or any major event where a lot of people die at the hands of another human being, the conspiracy theorists will invent a conspiracy to go along with it. I think its important to demonstrate the lunacy of the entire conspiracy movement. Mark my words, the next time one of these things happens, it wont be long before there is a thread about how the government did it , "its fake blood", blah blah blah.

I have no powers that allow me to see into the future, so how can it be so easy for me to predict this? The answer is simple.... conspiracy theorists are predictable.

All you conspiracy theorists can prove me wrong by shutting the fuck up the next time there is a tragedy., but I bet you cant do it. Making shit up and then convincing yourself that its true, is clearly one of your many personality flaws.

It really was the CIA, John Edwards and Richard Nixon who were involved!



It turns out the conspiracy theorists are right sometimes and maybe more often than thought.

For example, in the recent Navy Yard shooting attack by Aaron Alexis that killed 12 and injured eight, theories have been abundant, especially after Alexis reportedly heard voices.

Alexis apparently believed he was being harassed through microwave mind control, an assertion that in the mind of most would render him crazy.

But Wired.com pointed to a 2008 story on a declassified Pentagon report disclosing research on using microwave voice projection technology as weaponry.

The researchers at the Pentagon were reportedly looking for nonlethal weapons.

They concluded: “Application of the microwave hearing technology could facilitate a private message transmission. It may be useful to provide a disruptive condition to a person not aware of the technology. Not only might it be disruptive to the sense of hearing, it could be psychologically devastating if one suddenly heard ‘voices within one’s head.’”

Was it likely that Alexis was a target? No. Impossible? Also, apparently, no.

Skeptics have developed conspiracy theories regarding the Sandy Hook attack, space shuttle Columbia, 9/11 and many other major news events.

There even have been studies on the theorists and their theories.

Empirical data, without a doubt, affirms that the theorists are right, sometimes.

The Daily Caller reported two years ago that Watergate theorists were correct to suspect Richard Nixon. And yes, John Edwards was running around with Rielle Hunter. And it was the CIA working on an undersea project in the 1970s near Hawaii, not Howard Hughes, who only provided cover.

Challenging beliefs

According to studies, those who subscribe to conspiracy theories are less “married” to their theories than those who accept conventional wisdom.

One study showed that people who believe strongly in something are greatly offended when proven wrong, causing emotional stress that and in some cases can threaten self-image.

Pacific Standard magazine reported on such a study. It said that “because political beliefs are connected to deeply held values, information about politics can be very threatening to your self-image.”

“Imagine coming across information that contradicts everything you’ve ever believed about the efficacy of Medicare,” the magazine report said. “If you’re wrong about such an important policy, what else might you be wrong about? And if you’re wrong about a bunch of things, you’re obviously not as smart or as good or as worthwhile a person as you previously believed. These are painful thoughts, and so we evaluate information in ways that will help us to avoid them.”

Scientific American reported that those who are insecure about their own intellect are less likely to be able to accept information that doesn’t fit neatly into their worldview. The report made the case that people might actually prefer to hear intellectually light arguments for the simple reason that they can intellectualize and articulate them better than the one giving the weak argument, and this makes them feel smarter.

Psychological experts call this cognitive dissonance. Leon Festinger first proposed the concept in 1957. He said that there is a powerful motive to be consistent in one’s thoughts. This motive, he said, can be so compelling as to be disregarding of pertinent, even thought-altering information.
Festinger theorized people experience great anxiety when new information clashes with what they believe. Calling the tension cognitive dissonance, he elaborated on a deep, almost base instinct or motivation to eliminate the dissonance and make new information fit into one’s cognitive schema.

Might this mean that the conspiracy theorists, held in such disdain by polite society, have an intellectual self-confidence and mental stability to deal with the possibility of being wrong?

Lance deHaven-Smith, a professor and scientist at Florida State University, says quite possibly so.

In his book “Conspiracy Theory in America,” he says that history proves that the campaign to label those who hypothesize about large scale national events “conspiracy theorists” is a conspiracy itself.

He investigated how America’s founders warned in the Declaration of Independence of the possibility that the political elite will use their power to defame those who criticize their motives.

Invented term

DeHaven-Smith said that the term “conspiracy theorist” was invented and made popular intentionally by the CIA in an effort to discredit those who asked questions surrounding the assassination of JFK.

Since the CIA is banned from domestic activities, if true, it is illegal, contends Kevin Barrett of Press TV.

He said “people who use the terms ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination.”

“That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal,” he continued, “and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.”

Research seems to be trending in support of some of these claims. An abstract of a recent study published by researchers at the University of Ken in the U.K. looked at trends in social media.

The study collected comments and organized them into “conspiracist” and “conventionalist” categories. They assert that “conspiracy theorists” might be more well-grounded, even more sane, than those who accept conventional wisdom on contested events.

Here’s why.

Conventional commenters in social media seemed more reactive and became more hostile and fanatically attached to their conventional beliefs.

Additionally, they were less tolerant of dissenting ideas, illustrating an inability to discuss ideas and remain civil. Further, their research indicated that those who believe in the possibility of a conspiracy are quick to admit that they are not completely sure and don’t have all the answers regarding what is, after all, a theory.

Barrett concluded the U.K. findings like this: “In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.”

Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists do not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”

Two recent studies published in American Behavioral Scientist seem to support evidence that the brains of “conspiricists” work differently than the brains of conventional thinkers.

Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph said that conventional thinkers are unable to process information that conflicts with their pre-existing belief and then integrate it into their hypotheses of possible outcomes.

University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman agrees.

He says conventional thinkers and those who reject possibilities labeled as conspiracy are simply prey to “confirmation bias,” similar to Festinger’s cognitive dissonance. They actively seek out only information that confirms their prior conventional beliefs.

The label of “conspiracy theorist,” according to Hoffman, aids in an irrational mechanism of labeling to avoid having to integrate contrary information that might cause mental or emotional tension for the weaker mind. That would explain the anger and hostility at those who present other theories that don’t integrate well.

Psychology professors aren’t alone in their theory about theories.

Communication professors at Boise State University presented a peer-reviewed piece called

“Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion.”

They said that simply by calling someone a conspiracy theorist, it doesn’t matter whether you have “actually claimed … a conspiracy exists, or whether you have simply raised an issue” that someone would rather not discuss at all. By labeling people with ideas different from convention, they “strategically exclude” dissent and new ideas from public consumption.


More power to the shields scotty!

 

[SteadyMercury]

It turns out the conspiracy theorists are right sometimes and maybe more often than thought.

Turns out conspiracy theorists are good at convincing themselves they were right.

Sorry dude, you are batshit crazy.

 

[KokomoJojo]

It turns out the conspiracy theorists are right sometimes and maybe more often than thought.

Turns out conspiracy theorists are good at convincing themselves they were right.

Sorry dude, you are batshit crazy.

Thats from psychology research, seems they are finding you are the one who is batshit crazy.

I think they are trying to figure hout how to fix you people.

and yes, even without all the facts conspiracy theorists are more often than correct or at least hot on the trail and most often rats are found where CT's smell them.

Sorry.....nah not really.

 

[daws101]

Inside the minds of the birthers and other conspiracy theorists

By Jonathan Kay,April 29, 2011


Some folks flee from conspiracy theorists — birthers, truthers, those who think that Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t act alone or that Jim Morrison is still alive. Not me. In the past three years, I’ve interviewed hundreds of them.

The assortment of people who believe that President Obama was not born in the United States — even after he released his long-form birth certificate on Wednesday — shows that not all conspiracy theorists are unhinged, bug-eyed loners. They often come in more respectable guises: state legislators, radio talk-show hosts or real estate magnates turned reality-TV stars with hopes of landing the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.

What distinguishes them from the rest of us isn’t a big bankroll or a particular political persuasion — it’s a twisted relationship with reality. Conspiracy theorists retreat into fantasy worlds, bending fact and history to meet their psychological needs and emotional motivations. Here’s a taxonomy of true fake believers:

1. Apocalyptic Doomsayers

The Apocalyptic Doomsayer — usually, though not always, an evangelical Christian — embraces conspiracy theories to funnel a bewildering mix of anxieties into a simple good-vs.-evil narrative approximating that of the Book of Revelation. Many Apocalyptic Doomsayers scan the news for signs that the world is moving toward an epic confrontation between the forces of light and darkness.

A leading Doomsayer is prominent birther Joseph Farah, a socially conservative born-again Christian whose popular WorldNetDaily Web site fetishizes Obama conspiracies. This site’s readers think conservative American values must battle an Islamist, Afrocentric, socialist president bent on destroying the country.

2. Failed Historians

All ideologues — from Marxists to tea party activists, Islamists to radical Zionists — shoehorn history into preconceived templates, developing triumphalist story lines that will eventually lead to the victory of a chosen group and the vanquishing of an enemy. When history doesn’t cooperate, explanations become necessary. For Failed Historians, conspiracy theories supply those explanations.

An extreme example of the Failed Historian is the Holocaust denier. As Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman concluded in their 2000 book, “Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?,” these conspiracy theorists “like the idea of a rigid, controlled, and powerful state. Some are fascinated with Nazism as a social/political organization and are impressed with the economic gains Germany made in the 1930s. . . . The history of the Holocaust is a black eye for Nazism. Deny the veracity of the Holocaust, and Nazism begins to lose this stigma.”




3. The Mentally Unbalanced

Are all conspiracy theorists unhinged? Certainly not. Modern conspiracy movements are usually collaborative enterprises that take root on the Internet, and mentally ill people often struggle with sustained collaborations of any kind. But are some conspiracists troubled? You bet.

In my research, I met a sad fellow who pops up at events such as the We Demand Transparency conspiracy conference in New York City in 2009. He says he was a limousine driver who ferried the Sept. 11 hijackers on reconnaissance trips in and out of New York. I’m not a psychiatrist and can’t verify his claims, but he’s inserted himself into a wild narrative, just as some mentally ill people spin conspiracy theories centered on people they know — estranged spouses, landlords waiting for rent checks and former employers. This isn’t a sign of clear thinking.

4. The Midlife Crisis Case

There’s no polite way to say this: Many conspiracy theorists I met were paunchy 40- and 50-something men facing disappointment in their personal lives. In interviews, it seemed clear that they were struggling with midlife crises and trying to reinvent themselves for a new audience.

Consider Sept. 11 conspiracy theorist Richard Gage, an architect who abandoned his business to roam the world preaching the notion that “controlled demolition” brought down the twin towers. “I’ve never been happier,” he told me in 2009. “I feel blessed, in fact. This is my destiny, my mission. I’ve lost my career. I’ve lost my marriage. I’ve lost my house. But I’m working with patriots, spreading the truth about what’s happened to their country. What more could I ask?”

5. Fakers

I’ve never interviewed Donald Trump, but his sudden interest in birtherism smells like a publicity stunt. What better way to galvanize the Republican Party’s Obama-phobic base?

Perhaps the Donald has been plotting this all along: building a real estate empire in the 1980s, then willfully going bankrupt in a ploy for sympathy before rebuilding a bigger, better brand bolstered by “The Apprentice” and a signature hairdo. I mean, The Washington Post reported this past week that Trump has donated more to Democrats than Republicans. What’s the deal with that? Maybe he engineered Obama’s unlikely win in 2008 just so he could run against him in 2012.

Of course, that’s just a theory.



Jonathan Kay is the managing editor of Canada’s National Post and the author of “Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground,” from which this essay is adapted.
Inside the minds of the birthers and other conspiracy theorists - Washington Post

 

[LA RAM FAN]

It turns out the conspiracy theorists are right sometimes and maybe more often than thought.

Turns out conspiracy theorists are good at convincing themselves they were right.

Sorry dude, you are batshit crazy.

what hypocrisy.the other way around.the conspiracy theorists are people like yourself in this thread starter who are the ones that are good at convincing themselves that they are right.You trolls only see what you want to see,anytime you are shown evidence that your wrong,you dismiss it ignoring it like it wasnt posted,and then change the subject knowing you all are cornered and then cowardly run off with your tail between your legs when challenged to refute faccts from videos or links.

you all get so frustrated that predictably,you all start making threds like this.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The next time there is mass shooting (in the US), or terrorist attack, or any major event where a lot of people die at the hands of another human being, the conspiracy theorists will invent a conspiracy to go along with it. I think its important to demonstrate the lunacy of the entire conspiracy movement. Mark my words, the next time one of these things happens, it wont be long before there is a thread about how the government did it , "its fake blood", blah blah blah.

I have no powers that allow me to see into the future, so how can it be so easy for me to predict this? The answer is simple.... conspiracy theorists are predictable.

All you conspiracy theorists can prove me wrong by shutting the fuck up the next time there is a tragedy., but I bet you cant do it. Making shit up and then convincing yourself that its true, is clearly one of your many personality flaws.

It really was the CIA, John Edwards and Richard Nixon who were involved!



It turns out the conspiracy theorists are right sometimes and maybe more often than thought.

For example, in the recent Navy Yard shooting attack by Aaron Alexis that killed 12 and injured eight, theories have been abundant, especially after Alexis reportedly heard voices.

Alexis apparently believed he was being harassed through microwave mind control, an assertion that in the mind of most would render him crazy.

But Wired.com pointed to a 2008 story on a declassified Pentagon report disclosing research on using microwave voice projection technology as weaponry.

The researchers at the Pentagon were reportedly looking for nonlethal weapons.

They concluded: “Application of the microwave hearing technology could facilitate a private message transmission. It may be useful to provide a disruptive condition to a person not aware of the technology. Not only might it be disruptive to the sense of hearing, it could be psychologically devastating if one suddenly heard ‘voices within one’s head.’”

Was it likely that Alexis was a target? No. Impossible? Also, apparently, no.

Skeptics have developed conspiracy theories regarding the Sandy Hook attack, space shuttle Columbia, 9/11 and many other major news events.

There even have been studies on the theorists and their theories.

Empirical data, without a doubt, affirms that the theorists are right, sometimes.

The Daily Caller reported two years ago that Watergate theorists were correct to suspect Richard Nixon. And yes, John Edwards was running around with Rielle Hunter. And it was the CIA working on an undersea project in the 1970s near Hawaii, not Howard Hughes, who only provided cover.

Challenging beliefs

According to studies, those who subscribe to conspiracy theories are less “married” to their theories than those who accept conventional wisdom.

One study showed that people who believe strongly in something are greatly offended when proven wrong, causing emotional stress that and in some cases can threaten self-image.

Pacific Standard magazine reported on such a study. It said that “because political beliefs are connected to deeply held values, information about politics can be very threatening to your self-image.”

“Imagine coming across information that contradicts everything you’ve ever believed about the efficacy of Medicare,” the magazine report said. “If you’re wrong about such an important policy, what else might you be wrong about? And if you’re wrong about a bunch of things, you’re obviously not as smart or as good or as worthwhile a person as you previously believed. These are painful thoughts, and so we evaluate information in ways that will help us to avoid them.”

Scientific American reported that those who are insecure about their own intellect are less likely to be able to accept information that doesn’t fit neatly into their worldview. The report made the case that people might actually prefer to hear intellectually light arguments for the simple reason that they can intellectualize and articulate them better than the one giving the weak argument, and this makes them feel smarter.

Psychological experts call this cognitive dissonance. Leon Festinger first proposed the concept in 1957. He said that there is a powerful motive to be consistent in one’s thoughts. This motive, he said, can be so compelling as to be disregarding of pertinent, even thought-altering information.
Festinger theorized people experience great anxiety when new information clashes with what they believe. Calling the tension cognitive dissonance, he elaborated on a deep, almost base instinct or motivation to eliminate the dissonance and make new information fit into one’s cognitive schema.

Might this mean that the conspiracy theorists, held in such disdain by polite society, have an intellectual self-confidence and mental stability to deal with the possibility of being wrong?

Lance deHaven-Smith, a professor and scientist at Florida State University, says quite possibly so.

In his book “Conspiracy Theory in America,” he says that history proves that the campaign to label those who hypothesize about large scale national events “conspiracy theorists” is a conspiracy itself.

He investigated how America’s founders warned in the Declaration of Independence of the possibility that the political elite will use their power to defame those who criticize their motives.

Invented term

DeHaven-Smith said that the term “conspiracy theorist” was invented and made popular intentionally by the CIA in an effort to discredit those who asked questions surrounding the assassination of JFK.

Since the CIA is banned from domestic activities, if true, it is illegal, contends Kevin Barrett of Press TV.

He said “people who use the terms ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination.”

“That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal,” he continued, “and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.”

you're making way too much sense for them to comprehend. thats why they are not attempting to counter these facts.

Research seems to be trending in support of some of these claims. An abstract of a recent study published by researchers at the University of Ken in the U.K. looked at trends in social media.

The study collected comments and organized them into “conspiracist” and “conventionalist” categories. They assert that “conspiracy theorists” might be more well-grounded, even more sane, than those who accept conventional wisdom on contested events.

Here’s why.

Conventional commenters in social media seemed more reactive and became more hostile and fanatically attached to their conventional beliefs.

Additionally, they were less tolerant of dissenting ideas, illustrating an inability to discuss ideas and remain civil. Further, their research indicated that those who believe in the possibility of a conspiracy are quick to admit that they are not completely sure and don’t have all the answers regarding what is, after all, a theory.

Barrett concluded the U.K. findings like this: “In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.”

Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists do not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”

Two recent studies published in American Behavioral Scientist seem to support evidence that the brains of “conspiricists” work differently than the brains of conventional thinkers.

Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph said that conventional thinkers are unable to process information that conflicts with their pre-existing belief and then integrate it into their hypotheses of possible outcomes.

University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman agrees.

He says conventional thinkers and those who reject possibilities labeled as conspiracy are simply prey to “confirmation bias,” similar to Festinger’s cognitive dissonance. They actively seek out only information that confirms their prior conventional beliefs.

The label of “conspiracy theorist,” according to Hoffman, aids in an irrational mechanism of labeling to avoid having to integrate contrary information that might cause mental or emotional tension for the weaker mind. That would explain the anger and hostility at those who present other theories that don’t integrate well.

Psychology professors aren’t alone in their theory about theories.

Communication professors at Boise State University presented a peer-reviewed piece called

“Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion.”

They said that simply by calling someone a conspiracy theorist, it doesn’t matter whether you have “actually claimed … a conspiracy exists, or whether you have simply raised an issue” that someone would rather not discuss at all. By labeling people with ideas different from convention, they “strategically exclude” dissent and new ideas from public consumption.


More power to the shields scotty!

you're making way too much sense for them to comprehend.thats why they are not making any attempts to counter your facts.