"...have there ever been proven conspiracies?..."

Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Is it your argument that occasional misdiagnosis by mental healthcare professionals is a good reason to believe outrageous claims that arrive without evidence?
Click to expand...

No sir. From the link:

The authors of a paper on this phenomenon ( Bell, V., Halligan, P.W., Ellis, H.D. (2003) Beliefs About Delusions. The Psychologist, 6 (8), 418-422) conclude:

Sometimes, improbable reports are erroneously assumed to be symptoms of mental illness [due to a] failure or inability to verify whether the events have actually taken place, no matter how improbable intuitively they might appear to the busy clinician.

In other words, psychologists who haven't taken the time to examine for themselves the claims of their patients will tend to label as delusional anything which they "intuitively" feel is improbable.

Many psychologists - just as Martha Mitchell's - will tend to assume any claim of conspiracy is improbable. However, conspiracies are actually common occurences which are well-recognized by the law.

Psychologists are even more apt to label government conspiracies as improbable. However, as Martha Mitchell's psychologist learned, they do happen. Watergate, for example, was a conspiracy.

Psychologists who have attempted to label as delusional those who raise the possibility of government conspiracies do not have even a basic understanding of the Martha Mitchell Effect, or have not examined whether or not there is any factual basis for their patient's claims.

Obviously, some people are delusional, and see conspiracies where none exist. But it is equally true that when millions of scientists, military leaders, historians, legal scholars, intelligence officials and other rational people say the government is lying, psychologists who dismiss similar claims by their patients are falling prey to the Martha Mitchell Effect. They are too busy and/or arrogant to actually examine their assumptions as to whether or not the claims which feel improbable to them are true.
Click to expand...
 
Bubba said:
No sir. From the link:
Click to expand...

Then what is its relevance? For example, how would we evaluate this phenomenon outside the mental healthcare context? Is there a difference in your mind between responding with a diagnosis of mental illness (however misled) and simply not believing the claimant?
 
Answers better than I would compose...

John Mitchell was the Attorney-General during the Nixon administration.

His wife - Martha Mitchell - told her psychologist that top White House officials were engaged in illegal activities. Her psychologist labeled these claims as caused by mental illness.

Ultimately, however, the relevant facts of the Watergate scandal vindicated her.

In fact, psychologists have now given a label - the "Martha Mitchell Effect" - to "the process by which a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other mental health clinician mistakes the patient's perception of real events as delusional and misdiagnoses accordingly".

The authors of a paper on this phenomenon ( Bell, V., Halligan, P.W., Ellis, H.D. (2003) Beliefs About Delusions. The Psychologist, 6 (8), 418-422) conclude:

Sometimes, improbable reports are erroneously assumed to be symptoms of mental illness [due to a] failure or inability to verify whether the events have actually taken place, no matter how improbable intuitively they might appear to the busy clinician.

In other words, psychologists who haven't taken the time to examine for themselves the claims of their patients will tend to label as delusional anything which they "intuitively" feel is improbable.

Many psychologists - just as Martha Mitchell's - will tend to assume any claim of conspiracy is improbable. However, conspiracies are actually common occurences which are well-recognized by the law.

Psychologists are even more apt to label government conspiracies as improbable. However, as Martha Mitchell's psychologist learned, they do happen. Watergate, for example, was a conspiracy.
Click to expand...
 
Bubba said:
Answers better than I would compose...
Click to expand...

None of those answers any of my questions.

You have cited a phenomenon in the healthcare profession without citing its relevance outside that field. You have admitted that it doesn't license a belief in farfetched claims that are presented without evidence.

What is the relevance of this effect to the subject of the thread?
 
JayUtah said:
None of those answers any of my questions.

You have cited a phenomenon in the healthcare profession without citing its relevance outside that field. You have admitted that it doesn't license a belief in farfetched claims that are presented without evidence.

What is the relevance of this effect to the subject of the thread?
Click to expand...

Deemed an example of how crooks could benefit where suggestion of collusion in high places is not taken seriously.
 
Bubba said:
Deemed an example of how crooks could benefit where suggestion of collusion in high places is not taken seriously.
Click to expand...

If I had a magic wand and could make the phrase "conspiracy theory" disappear from the English language, then absolutely nothing would change.

Some people would say "those high ranking officials are working together to commit crimes." Other people would say, " show us evidence that they are working together to commit crimes or we will laugh at your unsupported fantasies." If evidence were then presented, the second group would then agree that the high ranking officials were committing crimes. If evidence were not presented, then laughter and mockery might ensue.

Stop getting so hung up on how the term conspiracy theory is used or misused. If there is evidence of a crime, then let it be presented, if there is no evidence of a crime then stop accusing people of crimes.

The phrase "conspiracy theory" does not allow criminals to get away with crimes.
 
JayUtah said:
Taken seriously by whom? By psychiatrists?
Click to expand...

Apparently a psychiatrist in the Martha Mitchell case.

I'd not rule out that it could happen elsewhere such as a LEO ignoring a future claim similar to hers.

I can see the point made about blaming C theorists for any instance of a C theory being dismissed. I can also see the popular ridicule could contribute to a future C theory being ignored whether true or not.

This guy discusses that in more detail. Maybe you've seen it:

Stop sign on the information highway.

http://davidcogswell.com/Essays/SeeNoEvil.html
 
Ladewig said:
If I had a magic wand and could make the phrase "conspiracy theory" disappear from the English language, then absolutely nothing would change.

Some people would say "those high ranking officials are working together to commit crimes." Other people would say, " show us evidence that they are working together to commit crimes or we will laugh at your unsupported fantasies." If evidence were then presented, the second group would then agree that the high ranking officials were committing crimes. If evidence were not presented, then laughter and mockery might ensue.

Stop getting so hung up on how the term conspiracy theory is used or misused. If there is evidence of a crime, then let it be presented, if there is no evidence of a crime then stop accusing people of crimes.

The phrase "conspiracy theory" does not allow criminals to get away with crimes.
Click to expand...

How does one prove that?

Besides, the phrase "conspiracy theory" is less the issue than "conspiracy theorist" is.
 
Bubba said:
Since the definitions no longer mean what they originally meant, new launguage is needed to distinguish old from new. Also to help avoid confusion and accusations of prejudice and bigotry.
Click to expand...

Please elaborate.
 
CTers have only themselves to blame for their bad reputation.

And then they confabulated yet another CT to explain away that pesky fact.
 
Last edited:
Bubba said:
Apparently a psychiatrist in the Martha Mitchell case.
Click to expand...

And my question again is one of relevance. I'm not a psychiatrist and neither are you. Neither, in fact, are most people. Therefore what psychologists do in the course of practicing their profession is of dubious applicability to anyone else.

I'd not rule out that it could happen elsewhere such as a LEO ignoring a future claim similar to hers.
Click to expand...

You present no data regarding law enforcement, only mental healthcare. In any case, the same problem applies -- how does citing the behavior of people in the practice of professions generalize to the acceptance or dismissal of conspiracy theories in any larger context, such as public discourse?

The problem is that the science you present, and your attempt to extend it to law enforcement, involve a shift in the burden of proof that doesn't hold in the general case. The purpose of an engagement with a psychologist or psychiatrist is to obtain a diagnosis if possible -- an affirmative hypothesis for the cause of observable symptoms. In that context it is indeed the responsibility of the professional to actively seek information to differentiate the diagnosis from among several possible hypotheses. Only then is his affirmative diagnosis based on data.

Ditto law enforcement, who have a constitutionally imposed burden of proof.

However outside those special engagements, the burden of proof remains with the claimant. If you claim in general that, for example, the U.S. military practices rounding up Americans to send them to FEMA death camps, the responsibility does not suddenly devolve to your critics to research the relevant data and provide evidence for or against it. You have the burden of proof. If you cannot sustain it, then your critics are not irrational for rejecting the claim.

Further, Mitchell made many other outrageous claims that were not proven. If a patient makes five outrageous claims and only one of the five happens to be true, where does that leave the psychiatrist and the diagnosis? That the Watergate claims turned out to be true does not stop Mrs. Mitchell also from being delusional about other things. Even the worst paranoid schizophrenics are sometimes right, but they still suffer from the affliction otherwise. A priori plausibility of the claim is still a useful differentiating factor -- just one that is open to misuse.

The take-away from the so-called Mitchell Effect is not that outrageous claims sometimes turn out to be true and therefore should all be taken seriously. It's that mental healthcare professionals, who have a certain special duty of care in the practice of their profession, sometimes unprofessionally base their affirmative diagnosis on a priori probability without shouldering their imposed burden of proof. Those findings, in terms of their context and their reasons, do not generalize beyond that as no such imposition occurs.

As to the matter of credibility, your claims are generally rejected because they exhibit poor research skills and indefensible lines of reasoning. They are not rejected categorically just because you fall under the label of "conspiracy theorist." So you can reformulate the language however you want, but the words you choose will still quickly come to mean, "A person who exhibits poor reasoning and research skills." In short, the characterization is not, "Bubba is a conspiracy theorist therefore we can ignore anything he claims." The characterization is, "Bubba exhibits poor reasoning and research skills, therefore we reject his claims and also it would be fair to use the label 'conspiracy theorist' to summarize him."
 
JayUtah said:
...

In short, the characterization is not, "Bubba is a conspiracy theorist therefore we can ignore anything he claims." The characterization is, "Bubba exhibits poor reasoning and research skills, therefore we reject his claims and also it would be fair to use the label 'conspiracy theorist' to summarize him."
Click to expand...

It has gotten to the point where I can say the highlited part and not feel bad. ;)
 
As a reformed CT-Loon, one of the logical problems I encountered back then was the inability to predict the next event or action of the "Conspirator of Choice". Events were always back-engineered to fit the CT, yet nobody ever saw it coming in advance, and if it's a real conspiracy there should be a level of predictability.

For example: The Mafia. The Mafia crime families in the U.S. are predictable, and even when they surprise law enforcement their actions are not outside of their capabilities or ongoing goals. You'll never see the Cleveland mob become a no-profit charity. This holds true for the majority or organized crime world wide. Law enforcement usually just waits for them to move into a predictable area and pounces.

All of that said, the Mafia isn't going away any time soon.

This begs the question: If we know the Mafia exists and can predict their activities, why can't we get ahead of the SUPER SECRET ALL-SEEING ALL-CONTROLLING WHATCHYAMACALLIT?

I still listen to Coast to Coast AM sometimes. Nobody, no psychics, none of the long list of CT specialists called the economic crash of 2008. This was something happening out in the open in all 50 states, but there was no warning from the CT community at all. None. Zero. NADA. There were maybe a dozen financial annalists who were sounding the warning as early as 2006, but the so-called CT watchdogs never saw it coming.

So if the best CT crews can't spot an actual conspiracy then why would anyone expect them to crack some clandestine organization?
 
Conspiracies are proven all over the world, on a daily basis. They're proven with evidence. No conspiracy has ever been proven without evidence. That's because you need evidence to prove something.

Quite a simple concept, but one that Conspiracy Theorists don't seem to quite be able to get their head around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom