9/11 Truth & an Anti-War Movement

[Oystein]

It's an effect that currently the political options are on the right; but not the reason.
As someone wrote in the other thread: The distinction is not between left and right, but between sane and whacko.


As a European I understand full well that whacko is much more correlated with the American right

 

[Scott Sommers]

Exactly! Maybe you really need to awake to the possibility that libertarianism isn't on, but off, the conventional left-right axis of American politics!

Why is it that this hasn't come for about a year, and now that it does, it's not the Americans who are questioning this, but a German. I hope this doesn't sound rude, but it makes me think you're missing important elements in American politics that perhaps should be handled in a different forum.

Ron Paul is not a libertarian. You know he is a member of Republican Party where he has been a Congressman for decades? Libertarians vote for him but he is certainly not a Libertarian. He is an advocate of state's rights, which is a particular kind of right-wing American belief. He supports state intervention in personal choice for birth control and he opposes abortion under any circumstances. He supports a Christian state. His beliefs border on state independence and you do know that Texas does have a political movement that advocates Independence from the USA?

If my point is trivial, then you don't have to reply to it. I don't think it's trivial and that you see its importance...well, I guess that means you don't understand politics the way I do.

 

[Scott Sommers]

It's an effect that currently the political options are on the right; but not the reason.
As someone wrote in the other thread: The distinction is not between left and right, but between sane and whacko.


As a European I understand full well that whacko is much more correlated with the American right

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. Good...then at last we agree on this. I'm glad we could come to agreement on this so quickly.

 

[MarkLindeman]

I agree with Ryan on many things. This is not one of them. I do think there are people whose lives insulate them from conspiracy theory thinking. They may occasionally stray into this zone, as I have sometimes, but they have mechanisms in their lives that stop this.

Maybe we should ask Ryan what he meant (or maybe you already have), but I think all these statements are largely congruent. To say that many people have mechanisms in their lives that tend to insulate or inoculate them against ******** conspiracy theories -- or, on the other hand, that other people have mechanisms that tend to expose them -- isn't to say that they are different kinds of people, except by force of habit or learning. I strongly suspect that some enduring psychological traits are at least conducive to conspiracism, but some of the mechanisms may be readily amenable to change. (I'm not really arguing a position here, just thinking about distinctions that may be helpful.)

...If I continue studying the development of conspiracy beliefs, I think there's a lot of exploratory work that needs to be done first. I don't feel that any of the measurement instruments that are in use today examining irrational or conspiracy beliefs can be very helpful with this....

I think that mostly makes sense -- although, e.g., if there is a strong empirical correlation (whatever the causal mechanisms) between conspiracism and supernaturalism, I would be surprised if existing instruments are useless to uncover it. Correlational studies are really limited for inferential purposes, but they can provide strong hints!

Returning to your question about dependent variables, I am increasingly convinced conspiracy belief overlaps with other crazy belief systems, and perhaps even with conventional religious beliefs. As I posted before, I am now going through the list of contacts that AE9/11T has posted on their website. One of the surprising things about this is the number of them who are linked to Tea Party groups and support Ron Paul. While it remains widely believed on the JREF that there are all these "old hippies" out there supporting the 9/11 Truth, there activists seem increasingly drawn from the extreme right-wing.

I'm sure there is considerable empirical overlap, and I'm sure it isn't coincidental.

Again, consider both predisposition and exposure. I find it very plausible that people who lack experience with and/or aptitude for scientific reasoning are prone to believe all sorts of ridiculous things. Also, ideas spread via social networks. Predisposition and exposure interact, and can be very hard to distinguish.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Maybe we should ask Ryan what he meant (or maybe you already have), but I think all these statements are largely congruent. To say that many people have mechanisms in their lives that tend to insulate or inoculate them against ******** conspiracy theories -- or, on the other hand, that other people have mechanisms that tend to expose them -- isn't to say that they are different kinds of people, except by force of habit or learning. I strongly suspect that some enduring psychological traits are at least conducive to conspiracism, but some of the mechanisms may be readily amenable to change. (I'm not really arguing a position here, just thinking about distinctions that may be helpful.)

I have to go to bed in a moment. I think I might start another thread to deal with this point, though.

I think that mostly makes sense -- although, e.g., if there is a strong empirical correlation (whatever the causal mechanisms) between conspiracism and supernaturalism, I would be surprised if existing instruments are useless to uncover it. Correlational studies are really limited for inferential purposes, but they can provide strong hints!

The last 15-20 years have seen enormous gains in measurement theory. Advances in computing power have made methods that were computationally beyond practical use into the mundane. Item Response Theory (IRT) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) have made it possible to deal with issues of causation and the problems of correlational models that you refer to.

I'm sure there is considerable empirical overlap, and I'm sure it isn't coincidental.

Again, consider both predisposition and exposure. I find it very plausible that people who lack experience with and/or aptitude for scientific reasoning are prone to believe all sorts of ridiculous things. Also, ideas spread via social networks. Predisposition and exposure interact, and can be very hard to distinguish.

This is often the suggestion and is a good part of what I would like to test. Is it exposure to scientific thinking? Or is it something else? I am not a big advocate of the idea of 'predisposition' in psychological theory. In much of psychology, it has been operationalized into the state/trait dichotomy. This has been a useful way to deal with the concept. I'm not sure if there are other useful ways to deal with it.

But for now...to bed.

 

[LSSBB]

Also, ideas spread via social networks. Predisposition and exposure interact, and can be very hard to distinguish.

Also, I believe that social networks add a weighting factor to the communication channel. When a message is coming from a close friend or relative, it has more emotional impact than from a faceless news source.

 

[alienentity]

I want to continue an idea I started elsewhere



So while there may be people who oppose a given war because of its monetary cost or because of the damage it might do to their chosen political party, these are probably not dominant motives in the fight to stop various wars. Some large portion of opposition would originate in the moral position that war is wrong. The reasoning behind this decision would be secondary. Factual support for various opinions would be irrelevant.

Certainly I understand the confusion this entails. An opinion about the moral correctness of an action is very different from an opinion about the truth or falsehood of a factual statement. But in my search for the motivations behind the 9/1 Truth belief system, this is one of the ideas that I thought about.

I read thru most of the posts in this thread! (skimmed mostly) I'm still having a bit of trouble understanding what it is you're after. However, I would suggest that some of the proposed motivations and relationships are going to be very hard to measure.
No point getting into too many details, we can certainly generalize that:

Not all belief systems are rational
Belief in irrational ideas is not confined to any one part of the political spectrum nor cognitive subset (intelligence or education, for example)
Political movements tend to ensnare a relatively wide variety of supporters who are hoping for influence and see some common goals (hence the term 'politics makes for strange bedfellows')
Opposition (and support) movements tend to latch onto slogans and key beliefs which have particular resonance or appeal.
Mass movements tend to 'dumb down' ideas and sophisticated debate suffers - especially if the focus of the movement is very emotional. Nuance tends to be thrown out the window in the rush to 'win' against the 'other side'
Following that point, our emotional need to 'win', to dominate; our competitive nature, if you will, can push us quite readily into saying things or supporting things that we don't even believe. We can become quite insincere - and again this is a fairly common trait I think.

I'm attempting to add to this discussion, but I'm not trying to negate what anybody else has written, so this post may be talking past some of you. I'm just laying out some of my impressions, that's all.

I will say also that I have long felt a quasi-religious quality to 9/11 Truth beliefs. That is why I often describe them as 'urban legends' or 'myths'. But this doesn't mean that one needs to be 'religious' in a formal sense in order to be a 9/11 Truther. But I do think that the mindset is similar, and perhaps arises from a similar part of the human mind.

AWM attract a broad spectrum of people, I think. I would not be at all surprised to find conspiracy theory believers in such movements. But IMO they will never be the mainstream of those movements, simply because most ordinary folk are not really much into conspiracy beliefs per se.

 

[Scott Sommers]

I read thru most of the posts in this thread! (skimmed mostly) I'm still having a bit of trouble understanding what it is you're after. However, I would suggest that some of the proposed motivations and relationships are going to be very hard to measure.
No point getting into too many details, we can certainly generalize that:

Not all belief systems are rational
Belief in irrational ideas is not confined to any one part of the political spectrum nor cognitive subset (intelligence or education, for example)
Political movements tend to ensnare a relatively wide variety of supporters who are hoping for influence and see some common goals (hence the term 'politics makes for strange bedfellows')
Opposition (and support) movements tend to latch onto slogans and key beliefs which have particular resonance or appeal.
Mass movements tend to 'dumb down' ideas and sophisticated debate suffers - especially if the focus of the movement is very emotional. Nuance tends to be thrown out the window in the rush to 'win' against the 'other side'
Following that point, our emotional need to 'win', to dominate; our competitive nature, if you will, can push us quite readily into saying things or supporting things that we don't even believe. We can become quite insincere - and again this is a fairly common trait I think.

I'm attempting to add to this discussion, but I'm not trying to negate what anybody else has written, so this post may be talking past some of you. I'm just laying out some of my impressions, that's all.

I will say also that I have long felt a quasi-religious quality to 9/11 Truth beliefs. That is why I often describe them as 'urban legends' or 'myths'. But this doesn't mean that one needs to be 'religious' in a formal sense in order to be a 9/11 Truther. But I do think that the mindset is similar, and perhaps arises from a similar part of the human mind.

AWM attract a broad spectrum of people, I think. I would not be at all surprised to find conspiracy theory believers in such movements. But IMO they will never be the mainstream of those movements, simply because most ordinary folk are not really much into conspiracy beliefs per se.

There are a large number of unrelated ideas being discussed here and it is this large number that may be the source your confusion rather than their content.

In terms of measurement, there are established procedures used by psychologists to measure things like attitudes and opinions. There is a sizable literature that has been written about what is called irrational beliefs. This generally includes things like ESP and monsters and has been tied in with Creation Science. This research uses standard Likert-type measures and multivariate statistics to assess strength of belief. More recently, research like this has turned to conspiracy beliefs. This is the sort of psychological research that is sometimes cited here.

There are problems with this sort of research. These are very technical in nature. But the result is that they create problems for the generalization of results. When I talk about using meansurement theory, this is one proposed solution to these problems. Measurement theory has been around for a long time, but it is computationally dense that it was impossible to use until very recently. However, theoretically there is no debate about its significance for these problems and is universally in the construction of important high stakes tests, such as the GRE, LSAT and GMAT.

There are different kinds of commitments to 9/11 conspiracy theory. For the last 3 years, I have been primarily focused on individuals with a high level of commitments. I have know for a long time that many of those who support Ron Paul and other Republican candidates are very religious. Many of them are non-denominational, but almost all of the high active American Truthers that I am in contact with would call themselves Christian. Some are informally linked up with Christian patriot groups.

I have recently become aware of the depth of Christian beliefs among Truthers who see themselves as distant from this type of right-wing political allegiance. I had only vaguely been aware of this in the past. However, as the events of 9/11 grow increasingly distant, it appears that these kinds of beliefs are more and more characteristic of those involved in 9/11 conspiracy activities, especially those demanding a high level of commitment.

Because there is little research on the organization of conspiracy groups, I am looking for a model about which there are established research guidelines. As such, I have turned to the AWM. The title of this post refers to "an anti-war movement" as opposed to "the anti-war movement". This is because many Truthers describe their beliefs as based in their opposition to war in general. I would like to know more about how both Truthers and JREF critics of conspiracy see this. In several similar threads, JREF conspiracy advocates have offered very constructive posts about their beliefs. I am very happy to see this and hope to get some of their input here, as well.

I don't know if that answers your questions.