Paranoid Schizophrenia or just a deluded CTer?

[Sporanox]

From a simple sociological perspective, cultists and other individuals who subscribe to extremist beliefs are bound first by what may be considered "emotional" ties. Feelings of belonging and personal relationships seem to be two of the common examples, if I recall correctly. Once they are settled into their community, the environment gradually shapes their beliefs to the point where they are a cultist.

This explains a number of truthers I've met - all eager to get in on a trendy movement about sticking it to the Man, reveling in their internet conquests. The endless feedback loop of affirmation from other paranoids surely doesn't help.

 

[MervinFerd]

Paranoia does not have to include imminent fear. Believing in CTs is paranoid whether you fear the CT or not.

True paranoid schizophrenics with significant disease don't necessarily hide under their beds. They'll gladly talk to you for hours about their delusions.

But, most of these folks are not true schizophrenics. They are rational enough to put together superficially reasonable treatises, to carry on arguments on BBSs, and to sound sane in short interviews. The true crazies that show up on the BBSs are a different breed--they are not going to create any kind of mass movement, ever.

I'm thinking of the situation a couple of years ago, the real crazies and the professional Truthers are about all that is left now.

Lots of CTs fit this pattern. Look at the Kennedy assassination CTs. Look at the Roswell stuff.

Hmmmm. No one postulates that Kennedy was killed by a Death Ray from a satellite, or secretly poisoned and the Zapruder film and all the autopsy photos faked. Same for Roswell: Postulated Gov't coverup of a crash, but nothing high-tech about it. Nobody claims the UFO and the alien bodies were transported to the backside of the Moon by a secret Gov't program.

UN/NWO/Black Helicopters: Institutionally impossible and wildly ridiculous. But, there are helicopters, and the UN does have troops, sometimes, and a few people have advocated a world government.

IOW, in other theories, there remains some scant contact with the Real World. It is possible for a reasonably sane person to be pulled in. Trutherism, OTOH, reduced its appeal to the narrowest of fringes and has nearly disappeared in just a few years.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But, most of these folks are not true schizophrenics. They are rational enough to put together superficially reasonable treatises, to carry on arguments on BBSs, and to sound sane in short interviews. The true crazies that show up on the BBSs are a different breed--they are not going to create any kind of mass movement, ever.

You might be quite surprised to hear how convincing some paranoid schizophrenics actually sound.

...Hmmmm. No one postulates that Kennedy was killed by a Death Ray from a satellite, or secretly poisoned and the Zapruder film and all the autopsy photos faked. Same for Roswell: Postulated Gov't coverup of a crash, but nothing high-tech about it. Nobody claims the UFO and the alien bodies were transported to the backside of the Moon by a secret Gov't program.

UN/NWO/Black Helicopters: Institutionally impossible and wildly ridiculous. But, there are helicopters, and the UN does have troops, sometimes, and a few people have advocated a world government.

IOW, in other theories, there remains some scant contact with the Real World. It is possible for a reasonably sane person to be pulled in. Trutherism, OTOH, reduced its appeal to the narrowest of fringes and has nearly disappeared in just a few years.

Perhaps you are less well read on these other CTs. I assure you they can be as elaborate and as technically detailed as the 911 CTs.

 

[deep]

Trutherism, OTOH, reduced its appeal to the narrowest of fringes and has nearly disappeared in just a few years.

How are you measuring that, exactly?

 

[Baylor]

How are you measuring that, exactly?

By this.

 

[MervinFerd]

Obvious by inspection....

How are you measuring that, exactly?

How about looking at the number of posts to this forum? And the number of Truthers posting here?

 

[MervinFerd]

You might be quite surprised to hear how convincing some paranoid schizophrenics actually sound.

Most likely. But, if you followed individual posters for a year or more here, or on DU, it was very obvious which were Loons and which were insufferable jerks. The Truthers who turned Pro and became minor celebrities were certainly not schizophrenic. And, they were the ones who drove the Movement in the direction it went.[/quote]

Perhaps you are less well read on these other CTs. I assure you they can be as elaborate and as technically detailed as the 911 CTs.

True, I haven't checked out the current state of those CTs. I don't doubt that there are people out there spinning extraordinary stories.

However, we are nearly 50 years into JFK assassination and Roswell CTs. The stories that have some popular support all remain within some bound of obvious absurdity. Trutherism, in contrast, flamed brightly for a very few years and then was completely dominated by extravagant nuttiness. Paul Thompson's 9/11 Timeline and similar could have maintained a following indefinitely, but were overwhelmed by Controlled Demolition and No Planes.

 

[Tippit]

Based on interactions with Truthers online, the most consistent characteristic is Narcissism. Necessarily, the Truther sees himself as vastly smarter, or braver, than all the learned experts who think he is daft.

Based on interactions with "debunkers" online, the most consistent characteristic I have encountered is also Narcissism, with the propensity to use a type of condescension that only comes with the warmth and security of being part of the herd. Of course, I am smarter than most everyone, at least based on intelligence quotient, and I take pride in my ability to brush off those who think I am crazy or stupid for what I know. I am also smart enough to have considered whether I believe what I do as a function of my ego, or as an attempt to individuate myself, and I have, unfortunately for me, ruled this out.

Many do not seem paranoid: they speak openly of their knowledge of the Vast Conspiracy that can make hundreds disappear. With no concern that, if the theory were true, they would be in grave danger.

Since paranoia can be defined simply as irrational fear, and I am neither fearful nor irrational, it follows that I'm not paranoid. The perpetrators of the conspiracies I'm aware of are protected by the general mindset that views any and all conspiracy theories as ridiculous by default, an aura of dis-believability in essence.

Trutherism developed in a way different than other CTs. It adopted a lot of techniques, and probably personnel, from Crank Science. Endless analysis of the supposed physics of building collapse, video analysis of internet compressed videos, thermite, etc. All very pseudo-technical. I think this means that TM pulled in a different species of Nut than the John Birch Society.

9/11 truth developed because of a lot of strange contradictions and seeming coincidences added up to uncertainty about the official story in the minds of many.

 

[JihadJane]

How about looking at the number of posts to this forum? And the number of Truthers posting here?

Perhaps they have concluded that debating with a herd of people suffering from chronic Domineering Personality Disorder is futile.

 

[Ignorantbystander]

talking about paranoid and deluded?

This is from Eric Hufschmid's YouTube account:
"I don't check my messages very often. Besides, almost everybody who contacts me and wants to be my friend is turning out to be a Zionist agent who is trying to manipulate me."

poor guy....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
9/11 truth developed because of a lot of strange contradictions and seeming coincidences added up to uncertainty about the official story in the minds of many.

Hate to break it to you, dude, but the rest of us are not duped. You are.

 

[Orphia Nay]

talking about paranoid and deluded?

This is from Eric Hufschmid's YouTube account:
"I don't check my messages very often. Besides, almost everybody who contacts me and wants to be my friend is turning out to be a Zionist agent who is trying to manipulate me."

poor guy....

The CTists see enemies everywhere.

And that, is the conspiracy mindset.

It's not a belief in corrupt leaders. Hell, we all believe in corrupt leaders. It's a belief in a corrupt everybody. It's driving around in a world where every single person you see out of your windshield is utterly bloodthirsty and amoral, all except for you and a few, brave friends. What could make you feel more important than that?

http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

 

[MervinFerd]

Q.E.D.

Of course, I am smarter than most everyone, at least based on intelligence quotient, and I take pride in my ability to brush off those who think I am crazy or stupid for what I know.

Q.E.D.

 

[Praktik]

Based on interactions with "debunkers" online, the most consistent characteristic I have encountered is also Narcissism, with the propensity to use a type of condescension that only comes with the warmth and security of being part of the herd.

Actually Tippit hits an important point here. Especially in the more personal debates I've had on a local board with people who actually know me in real life and one of whom I considered one of my closest friends before this all came between us - the debates got so personalized and existential I ended up trying to take a step back frequently and wonder how much I may have matched up the criticisms I was levelling at them.

And I never really came up with a satisfactory answer. Fact is, there IS some ego-massaging involved in being a debunker. As much as we criticize them for having the conceit to call themselves "truthers" - our mirror-image conceit is that we have a better appraisal of reality than they do. Each of us applauds ourselves for not falling for the BS our opponents do: truthers like to think they're not "sheep" like us, and we like to think we're not deluded like they are.

So how do I account for the existence of these counterparts to the "Truther Conceit" on my end of things?

Well I think its simply part of human nature. Nearly everyone thinks their way of looking at the world is "right". The "conceit" is universal. So why focus on it so much?

In my mind it kind of cancels out. So this isn't really a criticism that I think can really "level your opponent" or give you a "win" in any debate when you direct it at your opponents. I DO think there is something to the truther mindset that perhaps exaggerates this conceit and takes it farther than other, more rational mindsets. But we cannot claim to be free of conceit.

All of us have it, even those who do not participate in these debates on either side.

And what I tell myself, at the end of the day, is that even if there are 6 or 7 billion individual "conceits" out here - not everyone is going to be interpreting reality in a way that matches up to the objective reality of the world. Some of us will be cleaving closer to the truth than others. And yes, I think that I cleave closer to the truth than a truther, since the mindset essentially requires distortions of history and a simplification of the mechanics of policy making and of the competing blocs of the world in order to maintain coherence.

maybe this is my conceit at work, but I don't think I need to do so much distorting to maintain my outlook..

 

[Tippit]

Hate to break it to you, dude, but the rest of us are not duped. You are.

Duped how, exactly? It's not like I've spent a fortune on conspiracy-minded literature. I've come through the financial crisis smelling like a rose because I understand the root cause. This just sounds like more condescension.

 

[Tippit]

And I never really came up with a satisfactory answer. Fact is, there IS some ego-massaging involved in being a debunker. As much as we criticize them for having the conceit to call themselves "truthers" - our mirror-image conceit is that we have a better appraisal of reality than they do. Each of us applauds ourselves for not falling for the BS our opponents do: truthers like to think they're not "sheep" like us, and we like to think we're not deluded like they are.

This, at least with regard to 9/11 conspiracies specifically, is a function of the highly polarizing nature of the event, and how it is interpreted. Each proponent of their argument feels there is a huge amount at stake here, and there really is, and so when argument and evidence don't suffice to convince their counterparts, all we're left with is contempt. This only serves to breed further polarization, create more suspicion and distrust, and makes the process of convincing anyone of anything all that more difficult. The same thing has occurred on a much larger scale in politics between Republicans and Democrats. In political discussions, many of us will quickly attempt to ascertain what political party the speaker associates herself with, and then judge accordingly, barely offering an ear to what that person actually has to say if they are determined to be the "enemy".

This has the unfortunate byproduct in the political arena of letting politicians get away with murder. They are judged less in truth based upon what they do, but upon how much political support they have. There are no corrupt Republicans or Democrats it seems, only corrupt accusers in the opposite party. This is a sad and scary development I think, and I will be happier if someday we all go back to just being Americans, if we ever can.

So how do I account for the existence of these counterparts to the "Truther Conceit" on my end of things?

Well I think its simply part of human nature. Nearly everyone thinks their way of looking at the world is "right". The "conceit" is universal. So why focus on it so much?

In my mind it kind of cancels out. So this isn't really a criticism that I think can really "level your opponent" or give you a "win" in any debate when you direct it at your opponents. I DO think there is something to the truther mindset that perhaps exaggerates this conceit and takes it farther than other, more rational mindsets. But we cannot claim to be free of conceit.

All of us have it, even those who do not participate in these debates on either side.

I agree with most of this, but I think far from merely "canceling out", the polarity serves to obscure the real truth, or at least, the best approximation of it, and it stifles civil discourse. At some point, being called crazy or stupid in every post makes me not care about what "debunkers" say or think, and I'm sure it's mutual. I often wonder why these people bother to even engage us in debate. After all, if we're crazy and/or stupid, then certainly our arguments are utterly baseless and without merit, and we will be resigned to the trash heap of history, with little need of rebuttal.

As far as "truthers" being more conceited than "debunkers", that's ridiculous. There is plenty of hate to go around it seems, and based on the fact that anyone who doubts what happened on 9/11 is in a distinct minority, the ridicule and disdain are almost entirely one-sided. If you don't believe me, pick the least ridiculous aspect of 9/11 truth, create a moniker on a forum somewhere, and try to play devil's advocate and see how you're treated.

 

[Praktik]

As far as "truthers" being more conceited than "debunkers", that's ridiculous. There is plenty of hate to go around it seems, and based on the fact that anyone who doubts what happened on 9/11 is in a distinct minority, the ridicule and disdain are almost entirely one-sided. If you don't believe me, pick the least ridiculous aspect of 9/11 truth, create a moniker on a forum somewhere, and try to play devil's advocate and see how you're treated.

Well the evidence I use to come to these conclusions is based on a few things:

1) The name of the movement itself: the "TRUTH" movement. This denotes a special capacity to know the truth, and I think its evidence that their version of the universal "conceit" I mentioned above is ingrained as deeply as those who prosletyze biblical "truth".

2) The "hip vs square" or "truther vs sheeple" mode of thought. I can't count how many times debates have been sidetracked by long debates about my "blinkers" or my post-secondary "programming". Why this continual need to refer to your opponent being a "sheep"? This is rampant throughout the movement and is part of the reason I've given the Truther conceit a higher "conceit rating" than their debate opponents.

Disclaimers: I should re-iterate that debunkers have their own conceits, so no one is blameless. Also -> #1 and #2 are not unique to Truthers, die hard religionists pretend to have a special access to "truth" as in #1 and #2 can trace its roots back to the counterculture of the 60s and you can see parallel thoughts in anti-consumerist tracts.

And I should also mention that in my above post my closing sentence about my specific outlook cleaving closer to reality than a truther outlook could be seen as a variation of #1, I just don't constantly tout that or constantly deride my opposition for being "sheep" following whatever AJ tells them. Its more the "truther reflex" of nearly always coming back to that "hip vs square", "truthers vs the sheep" analysis that I think elevates them above the norm in this respect.

 

[MervinFerd]

Ummmmm, yeah.

our mirror-image conceit is that we have a better appraisal of reality than they do.

I think you are falling into the fallacy of False Equivalence.

There are valid, and invalid arguments. Indisputable facts and lies. Coherent explanations and arrant nonsense. Expert opinion and ignorant foolishness.

Distinguishing between these is ultimately a matter of perception, as is distinguishing between Red and Blue colors. But the distinction is real, nonetheless.

The real conceit is to pretend we cannot be sure that the sky is blue.

 

[Praktik]

I think you are falling into the fallacy of False Equivalence.

Notice I have also concluded that my (or ours, as debunkers) conceit is perhaps outpaced by the nature of the conceits undergirding truther thoughts.

So its a nuanced view. I don't think conceits are equivalent in that they are rooted in different things in different people and manifest themselves differently in our expression.

All the same, to pretend that as debunkers we don't have any conceit undergirding our position (such as a smugness or self-satisfaction at being "right" or "seeing things as they are" or "cutting through the BS") is on some level, a form of denial.

That being said, sometimes conceits are sourced in matters of fact. A handsome looking dude with a perfect body maybe conceited about that fact - but then again, he's a handsome looking dude with a perfect body so there's maybe a reason for it..

Continuing the analogy then, maybe our conceit is rooted in the fact that well, we really are right.

This is all a product of going down the rabbit hole too many times to count with Truthers and after page upon page of forum-battling it gets to a nearly existential level and these are the kinds of weird self-reflections these debates have driven me to.

 

[Tippit]

Well the evidence I use to come to these conclusions is based on a few things:

1) The name of the movement itself: the "TRUTH" movement. This denotes a special capacity to know the truth, and I think its evidence that their version of the universal "conceit" I mentioned above is ingrained as deeply as those who prosletyze biblical "truth".

I can't disagree here. I don't like being labeled a "truther", and I don't consider myself one, even tho I will undoubtedly be labeled as such. But I think you misunderstood the reason for the name, which is presumably not to dictate the truth, but to attempt to get the truth that they feel has been covered up. But even this presumes that everyone else is not interested in the truth, which I would hope is not the case. What is a more neutral sounding alternative?

2) The "hip vs square" or "truther vs sheeple" mode of thought. I can't count how many times debates have been sidetracked by long debates about my "blinkers" or my post-secondary "programming". Why this continual need to refer to your opponent being a "sheep"? This is rampant throughout the movement and is part of the reason I've given the Truther conceit a higher "conceit rating" than their debate opponents.

It's a way of calling you stupid, in retaliation. Again, anyone who questions what happened on 9/11 is way out-numbered, and is going to be called crazy and stupid far more often than you will be called a "sheep". The ridicule is mostly one-sided, and so truthers are undoubtedly far more defensive as a result. I know I am. While I may be simply wrong, I know I'm not crazy or stupid, so no matter how many times I hear it, it doesn't necessarily bother me other than to prejudice me with respect to their views. I don't know any of you in person so it isn't exactly hurtful.