Why don't CTers lose credibility?

[HidariMak]

In an ideal, rational world, CTers would still exist. However, people in general would see details from the CTers which they know contradict facts and reality, and drop them like a bad used car salesman.

Most of the people I work with are fairly intelligent, and their jobs require them to analyze what is going on, and to find rational and logical causes for it. But many people from this same lot are not so picky about what they believe. They believe that jets were not used in the 9/11 attacks, that explosives had to be used to bring down the World Trade Center towers, that tens of thousands of people were really involved in a single massive conspiracy led by a government that can't even keep illegal wiretaps under wraps, and other nonsense.

Does anyone have any ideas as to why this is the case? I can understand, to an extent, their wanting to believe that the government couldn't be so uninformed and without full control of events in their own country. But why is the phrase "enough is enough" so rarely used by those who ever buy into the CTers? If somebody were to visibly lose their lunch on the buffet table, most people would stop eating. You wouldn't have to point out "uhh.... are you aware that you're eating bile?" And even if you did have to point that out to them, they wouldn't be insisting that what looks like a bit of mashed potato or a corn kernel is bile-free.

But with this CT nonsense, if they point out seven elements that they believe to be true, and you can give them evidence that all seven things are false, they'll give you an eighth. And in their mind, if you can't counter that eighth element on the spot, then they and the CTers are correct and you're the one who is mistaken. And sometimes, even when you give them access to all of the facts (like 911myths.com or Gravy's excellent Loose Change rebuttal), they'll refuse to even look.

So again, why do people insist on hearing and spouting stupidity, even when you point that out to them? I'm stumped.

 

[strathmeyer]

So again, why do people insist on hearing and spouting stupidity, even when you point that out to them? I'm stumped.

Uhh... because they're stupid?

Maybe it's just because people are accustommed to believing things that nobody else does and that they can't back up with facts, logic, or thought..

 

[Regnad Kcin]

There seems to be a general need for a kind of storybook narrative, the more dramatic the better. President Kennedy being murdered by a two-bit thug is not as thrilling and emotionally satisfying as if he were the victim of a sinister and far-reaching plot.

Also, the rise of the mass entertainment industry over the past 60 or so years has fed this need. From pulp fiction to Pulp Fiction, there's been no shortage of stories designed not only to provide for the need but to encourage it, like a drug that gives a little thrill. That the clever ones have the side-effect of suggesting possibilites which seem so real doesn't matter. Better still!

 

[SFB]

"Why don't CTers lose credibility?"

A better question may ask why they don't lose their credulity!

 

[tkingdoll]

Jeff Wagg made an excellent point recently that the CTers keep stories and events alive. I think that speaks volumes.

 

[Dicon]

Why don't CTers lose credibility?

If you can find the answer to this, then I really think you've found the answer to why people believe in all the different woos out there. I think that at the root of it, the CT audience, passionately wants these things to be true and thus will always provide a ready and willing market. You could, of course, substitute "religion," "homeopathy," "astrology," etc. for "CT" in that last sentence.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...I think that at the root of it, the CT audience, passionately wants these things to be true and thus will always provide a ready and willing market...

Yes, but why?

I humbly suggested one possibility in post #3.

 

[hellaeon]

loose credibility? I never realised they had any to start with.

 

[Ersby]

Further to the storybook narrative idea:

Some people (maybe most people) like to know things that other people don't. When I was young, part of the attraction of the paranormal was that it seemed to offer truths and secrets that the average man in the street didn't know. If I learnt those things, then I'd feel like I knew more, could understand more and, yes, was "better" than them.

I think it's a similar thing here. CTers like the idea that they know something other people don't. It makes them feel good about themselves, and with internet forums it's pretty easy to find like-minded people and get some positive feedback and a social aspect. So, after a while it becomes something that they use to define themselves. Once that happens, it becomes hard to shake.

 

[dubfan]

So again, why do people insist on hearing and spouting stupidity, even when you point that out to them? I'm stumped.

There are two reasons the 9/11 CTs seem to be taking root among otherwise rational people:

1. Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).

2. The government did some legitimately foolish things after 9/11, and wasn't completely open about things it had obviously screwed up.

Combine those two and you've got a volatile mix.

 

[Flo]

Some people (maybe most people) like to know things that other people don't.

Not only do they like to believe they know things other people don't, but that they're not sheeps easily fooled by "the establishment". In addition, conspirations and the paranormal are the only field where ignoramusses can pass for experts to the eyes of the gullible. As someone said, it's easier to become a guru than a Nobel laureate.

 

[Operaider]

Not only do they like to believe they know things other people don't, but that they're not sheeps easily fooled by "the establishment". In addition, conspirations and the paranormal are the only field where ignoramusses can pass for experts to the eyes of the gullible. As someone said, it's easier to become a guru than a Nobel laureate.

Ironicly many of them would consider themselves skeptics.
In many ways they are similar to us, only in a twisted way.

Like true skeptics they research areas and hold opinions that are counter to the majority of the public. Many of them meticulously research their areas of interest and try to persuade those who they see as having been deceived.

The main problem I see with them is that they start with the conclusion that an event happened, and then work backwards to find the evidence. This, as I see it, is their fatal flaw. It makes it nearly impossible to be proven wrong, and goes against the scientific method. If they could learn how to properly research these claims, some could probably become true skeptics.

P.S. This is coming from someone that once bought into the JFK conspiracy to the point of taking a trip to Texas to visit the site of the murder and talk to some of the people that witnessed it.

 

[Operaider]

Further to the storybook narrative idea:

Some people (maybe most people) like to know things that other people don't. When I was young, part of the attraction of the paranormal was that it seemed to offer truths and secrets that the average man in the street didn't know. If I learnt those things, then I'd feel like I knew more, could understand more and, yes, was "better" than them.

Do you think that skeptics might be drawn to skepticism for some of the same reasons. After all, we do know the tricks used by psychics, how to fake UFO and ghost photos, the holes in the excuses used for believing, etc.

I must admit to getting some guilty pleasure in knowing that while many people believe in this junk, I know better.

 

[Ersby]

Do you think that skeptics might be drawn to skepticism for some of the same reasons. After all, we do know the tricks used by psychics, how to fake UFO and ghost photos, the holes in the excuses used for believing, etc.

I must admit to getting some guilty pleasure in knowing that while many people believe in this junk, I know better.

Of course, but I'd say that skeptics are less supportive of each other (for want of a better word). On the Loose Change forums, some "anti-Zionist" stuff was posted which quickly turned into "anti-Jewish" and the other CTers were very reluctant to argue. They merely said nothing or said it was interesting. On skeptic boards, it doesn't matter who your are or how many posts you have, if you say something stupid, people let you know.

Whether you acknowledge you just said something stupid is another matter

 

[Operaider]

Of course, but I'd say that skeptics are less supportive of each other (for want of a better word). On the Loose Change forums, some "anti-Zionist" stuff was posted which quickly turned into "anti-Jewish" and the other CTers were very reluctant to argue. They merely said nothing or said it was interesting. On skeptic boards, it doesn't matter who your are or how many posts you have, if you say something stupid, people let you know.

Whether you acknowledge you just said something stupid is another matter

Too true, thats kinda part of my point.

Doesn't realy matter to any of them how they reach the conclusion, as long as they all reach the conclusion that a conspiracy is in progress.

Where as with us the path to the conclusion is just as important as the end result. Or, atleast it should be

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

I would think that skeptics are, almost by definition, more self-reliant mentally than those who take everything at face value, and so tend to need or seek support less than those at the other end of the spectrum. If you're willing to stand up and say "that's a crock!" then you're not someone who needs a gang behind you for confirmation first.

I have to just reiterate what Dubfan said, that if it wasn't for the fact that many governments go out of their way to cover up their own small foul-ups in relation to major events then most of these conspiracy theories would have never got going. People can see them hiding something, and it's a small leap from there to shape-changing lizards that rule the world in some minds.

 

[gfunkusarelius]

in regards to the OP, every time one of these classic CT posts pops up, there are several posts asking this basic question. the theories are wide ranging and there are actually a few books on the subject (i am reading why people believe weird things" right now). for people i know, i would definitely say the "bush derangement syndrome" is responsible for some of the more recent CTs, tho it doesnt explain things over history. a lot of CT's do stem from an inherent distrust of those in power...the old "power corrupts" adage. to some extent, it is good to question power, and i am certain there are a lot of underhanded dealings that the governements dont want us to know about and we probably should...i just dont think they are quite as sexy as what people dream up.
i also agree that, to some extent, it is the pulpy entertainment value, but, to be honest, i think the real story is just as interesting if not more interesting than what the CTs come up with a lot of the time.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I think what they do is dissect an event in history, find something that seems to go against what is the official story, and add in some paranoia. This appeals to people who already have a mistrust in authorities, most commonly government. The most popular conspiracies tend to be ones where the official story isn't all that satisfying. The exception to that is the moon hoax, the idea that it was a hoax probably wouldn't have ever crossed most people's minds if it werent for CTists.
Probably the most unfortunate part of CTs is that they often try to utilize gradeschool science to prove their points, when infact their use of science is often, kinda always, incorrect. Mooners use principles of shadows and the van allen belt, 9/11ers use the melting point of steel, and JFKers use the force and angle of an entering bullet. Of course shadow angles can vary based on object shape, the astronauts werent exposed to the worst of the van allen radiation, heated steel can loose strength at temps well below that of melting, and as a bullet exits the jet stream created sends the head towards the shooter.

 

[J. Arthur Hastur]

I think most CT theories gain traction in instances where investigations are slow and or botched. A lack of actual facts and clues causes people to create their own and the authorities inability or refusal to release relevant data and materials gives the speculation a semblance of validity..

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think most CT theories gain traction in instances where investigations are slow and or botched. A lack of actual facts and clues causes people to create their own and the authorities inability or refusal to release relevant data and materials gives the speculation a semblance of validity..

Plus, many consider facts, scientific process, and mundane explanations to be boring. Whereas, spin, conjecture, and flashy multimedia films are fun!