Merged Psychology of Conspiracy Theoriests

Got some sources for that claim that they are fake? Even though it's new ground that's rarely trod by your ilk, why don't you get up out of your Bark-o-lounger, walk upstairs and tell your mom you're going "outside" and do some real field work.

I do not accept your reversal of the burden of proof, no. And you can dispense with the insults.

The William Colby quote was the one that someone had in their signature. Feel free to provide evidence that he ever said that. Years ago, we had a member go find the original Newsweek article in which it supposedly appeared and, surprise, it was fake. You can search this forum for details if you want, since it's your burden of proof.
 
You're the one citing them. It's your responsibility to provide accurate references and, by so doing, establish that they are legitimate and suitable quotations.

Now you sound like Slick Willie when he said, "what is is?" If you want to play that game then how do we know that a live person started this post, any proof?

Here's a whole bunch for you with source:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Conspiracy
 
I do not accept your reversal of the burden of proof, no. And you can dispense with the insults.

The William Colby quote was the one that someone had in their signature. Feel free to provide evidence that he ever said that. Years ago, we had a member go find the original Newsweek article in which it supposedly appeared and, surprise, it was fake. You can search this forum for details if you want, since it's your burden of proof.

You've got to be kidding. Have you ever seen posts here where you all viciously call anybody disagreeing with you a woo, truther, kook, nutter, etc. I don't get nasty until you all get nasty, yet you seem to have a complete blindspot when it comes to your own nastiness and don't think you're doing what you accuse others of.

I have come to understand why you can't find a psychology forum on any debunker sites that I know of.

Debunker, know thy own self first.
 
You've got to be kidding. Have you ever seen posts here where you all viciously call anybody disagreeing with you a woo, truther, kook, nutter, etc. I don't get nasty until you all get nasty, yet you seem to have a complete blindspot when it comes to your own nastiness and don't think you're doing what you accuse others of.

I have come to understand why you can't find a psychology forum on any debunker sites that I know of.

Debunker, know thy own self first.

That's a lot of words for "no, I don't have a source for the Colby quote."
 
Now you sound like Slick Willie...

By all means continue insulting the people who are trying to hold you accountable, and call them names. It only proves how much accountability distresses you.

Here's a whole bunch for you with source:

Your quotes from above aren't there, especially the Colby quote you know goes no farther than McGowan who invented it after Colby's death. Repeating the quotes doesn't prove their authenticity. Listing other quotes doesn't prove the authenticity of the first.
 
I don't get nasty until you all get nasty...

Nonsense. We were having a polite discussion on the patterns of debate seen in conspiracy theories. You showed up out of the blue with nothing more substantial than a wall of screed from a guy who isn't even coy about his intent to make a living insulting skeptics, misrepresenting himself and them, and telling his fellow "psychics" they don't have to fear the Big Bad Skeptics.

I honestly can't determine who you think you're fooling here?
 
You've got to be kidding. Have you ever seen posts here where you all viciously call anybody disagreeing with you a woo, truther, kook, nutter, etc. I don't get nasty until you all get nasty, yet you seem to have a complete blindspot when it comes to your own nastiness and don't think you're doing what you accuse others of.

I have come to understand why you can't find a psychology forum on any debunker sites that I know of.

Debunker, know thy own self first.

It is hard for one person, man or woman, to try and maintain so many different personalities all at once, no matter how streamlined it is for them.
 
Superfical, self-serving pop psychology from a handyman. That's almost as convincing as your fake quotes in the "Woos ponder how to rally world against non-existant organization" thread.


http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2008/11/spr-study-day---the-psychology-of-the-sceptic.html

"But the intensity of dogmatism of many of the critics, their violent responses and seeming inability to connect with our reasoning, makes us suspect that there is such a thing as a skeptical psychology. It's not just the believer who is special - there's an awful lot going in skeptics' heads as well. Where skeptics see their automatic dismissal of paranormal claims, even when made by serious scientists, as a necessary and healthy reaction, we often see it as dogmatic, intolerant, and religious in its intensity, indicating a deep emotional commitment to the mechanist worldview. Some even see it as a rerun of the Reformation in a secular setting - with dissenters beating at the gates of the establishment, and embattled scientists defending orthodoxy against their heresies."


http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=25155

"We have all encountered them. The men and women of �reason�. The self-appointed guardians and vanguards of materialist dogma along with their absolute faith and belief in official government and corporate press releases. The debunker, the hardcore skeptic�how they love to compulsively ridicule and mock all they deem �pseudoscience� and �conspiracy theory��while also declaring anyone who thinks outside the box or questions the prevailing orthodoxy, a "moron" and a "tard". Matters not how solid the evidence you present them with is, nor how flimsy their own state-sanctioned �hard science� which they smugly offer up as their rebuttal; they are driven by a messianic compulsion to root out unscientific �idiots� with all the zeal and fanaticism similar to that of a Dominican or Jesuit charging through southern France in the twelfth century seeking out �heretics� for the burning. Irony does not even come into their myopic worldview�unless of course a government, corporate or university press office states this. Then it becomes an undisputed fact. Thanks to the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christoper Hitchens, these Internet-bound warriors of rationality see �Creationists� and �hidden Christians� around every corner and seek to root them out and expose them as part and parcel of their own peculiar secular witch hunt mentality.

The reality is that apart from their own kind�other self-proclaimed non-�idiots��most people find such arrogant and obnoxious debunkers and hardcore skeptics to be strangely angry and boorish, and often confrontational to the point of hysterical. So many of them seem to lack basic social and behavioural skills when �debating� with their �kook� of choice. Their absolutism can be staggering at times. Yet, despite all this, they have somehow come to consider themselves �cool� and even �sexy� within the last decade. This is simply a lack of critical thinking on their behalf; a distorted worldview where only they are right and everyone else is an idiot.

However, when you strip down their whole mandate into its constituent parts, one soon finds that most of these �scientifically� minded crusaders have no actual accredited scientific background, and the entire thrust of their endeavours remains nothing less than unconditional servitude and unquestioned devotion to authority figures and the status quo. They seek entrenched orthodoxy, not exploration and wonder. They see an open-minded individual as being akin to a brain being infected with a disease, or the mark of a witch. They act as if Creationists are a real danger to human survival, as if the US Bible Belt has extended beyond its absurd boundaries. Creationists are about as much danger to the advances made by scientists in the last two hundred years as Graneda was to Ronald Reagan back in the early 1980s."

"The debunker and the hardcore skeptics, on the other hand, will even attack these open-minded Materialists, similar to how a flying saucer cult will have very public witch hunts of so-so members who have not shown their unconditional devotion to the messages sent from the �space brothers�. The irony is that many of the open-minded skeptics that they attack often have a scientific or engineering background, and these folks are being attacked by debunkers whose sum total of their own quest for reason and logic rarely extends beyond procuring a �Mythbusters� DVD box set or having a poster of Richard Dawkins on their wall. Any Reductionist fence-sitters will be treated with ridicule
and contempt�even fascistic vitriol and vicious insults.

There is simply no grey areas within the concrete consciousness of the debunker or the hardcore skeptic; instead, only a kind of scientific idealism�and idealism, both secular or otherwise, is really just a nice way of saying �fascism�."

And on and on and on. I know you're going to try to kill the messenger and disregard the message. You're loss.
 
http://amasci.com/pathskep.html
Oh, boo hoo. If you want to be taken seriously, don't quote Craig Weller. His article is an unsubstantiated laundry list of reasons why he thinks skeptics are inferior, with a side dish of opinion polls. When that happens, the messenger is the message.

I feel the way he does, without having read his article or any others. It's just a matter of observation. I showed this site to some friends of mine; a court reporter, two lawyers, a code writer at Microsoft. All Intelligent guys with no agenda one way or the other. All these guys were amazed at how angry, rude, snotty, condescending this site is. You don't have to be a magician, or a forensic document investigator to know when someone is acting like you all on this site. Debunker's, masquerading as skeptics, do have a certain mentality. For example, your statement, "His article is an unsubstantiated laundry list of reasons why he thinks skeptics are inferior." This is truly the pot calling the kettle black. This statement applies to debunkers just as well.

http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2008/11/spr-study-day---the-psychology-of-the-sceptic.html

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...lly-divorce-myself-from-the-skeptic-movement/

http://amasci.com/pathskep.html

https://randomjohn.wordpress.com/20...y-debunkery-and-other-pseudoskeptical-topics/
 
snipped...

Carroll Quigley quotes:
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years, and was permitted in the early 1960's to examine its papers and secret records. … I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.
.

There must be a nutter talking points memo out because on another site someone trotted out Quigley, but a simple trip to wiki land is intersesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley#Quigley_and_secret_societies

One distinctive feature of Quigley's historical writings was his assertion that secret societies have played a significant role in recent world history. His writing on this topic has made Quigley famous among many who investigate conspiracy theories.[2]:96, 98 Quigley's views are particularly notable because the majority of reputable academic historians profess skepticism about conspiracy theories.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrol...ey_in_expos.C3.A9es_of_purported_conspiracies

Quigley was dismissive of the authors who used his writings to support theories of a world domination conspiracy. Of W. Cleon Skousen's The Naked Capitalist he stated:

Skousen's book is full of misrepresentations and factual errors. He claims that I have written of a conspiracy of the super-rich who are pro-Communist and wish to take over the world and that I'm a member of this group. But I never called it a conspiracy and don't regard it as such. I'm not an "insider" of these rich persons, although Skousen thinks so. I happen to know some of them and liked them, although I disagreed with some of the things they did before 1940.[30]

On Gary Allen's None Dare Call It Conspiracy he said:

They thought Dr. Carroll Quigley proved everything. For example, they constantly misquote me to this effect: that Lord Milner (the dominant trustee of the Cecil Rhodes Trust and a heavy in the Round Table Group) helped finance the Bolsheviks. I have been through the greater part of Milner's private papers and have found no evidence to support that. Further, None Dare Call It Conspiracy insists that international bankers were a single bloc, were all powerful and remain so today. I, on the contrary, stated in my book that they were much divided, often fought among themselves, had great influence but not control of political life and were sharply reduced in power about 1931-1940, when they became less influential than monopolized industry.[31]


The facts are not as near clear cut as certain parties assert, and at best what Quigley was writing were his opinions of events which were then co-opted and disseminated by individuals and groups who had/have a vested interest in fear-mongering - whatever Quigley may have believed was less important than the cachet that his name provided to the later writers that were working the angles - read what he said about None Dare...

Paranormal nonsense and physic grifters are something that cops sometime end up being familiar with, and the agency I worked for was no exception.

We had a couple of contacts with people that saw ghosts, more than a few UFO sighters (I'll give a few of them credit for at least reporting that "they didn't know" what the hell they saw) and we had our share of "physics" that could solve crimes - none ever did, but they always managed to somehow get the word out that they were "working" with the police...

The real grifters were the "physics" that worked angles on immigrant or other vulnerable populations and they were nothing more than flat out thieves and it was a good day when you nabbed one.

So If I understand your stated POV on all this, if I consider myself a skeptic I must ignore every real world experience I've ever had regarding folks that were confused, impaired by whatever substance they were ingesting, diminished in their mental capacity by organic damage or mental condition, frightened by religious conditioning, etc. (had somebody call 911 for an exorcism once) and the ones that didn't fit somehow into the above categories were lowlife con artists looking to rip off vulnerable people.

So, in essence, I must ignore the real world to be open minded enough to make rational judgments on individuals that have self reported physic powers or report paranormal activity?
 
(good post snipped)

And on and on and on. I know you're going to try to kill the messenger and disregard the message. You're loss.

Not at all. The descriptions fit some on the edges, and I would very much like to avoid those pitfalls, while remaining a skeptic and debunker. There is a place for critical thinking and considered opinions - sometimes coming to a clear diagnosis of "crap" and sometimes only a provisional diagnosis of "probably crap."
 
I showed this site to some friends of mine; a court reporter, two lawyers, a code writer at Microsoft.
Wow, two lawyers, a code writer at Microsoft (win10?). A court reporter? Do they support the fraud of psychics, ESP? UFOs BS>? Are they fellow UFO believers and psychic stuff. Got evidence to prove they agree with what you said they said.

What is that called when friends don't tell the truth to avoid embarrassing our beliefs. Are you skeptical of their consensus, or take it on faith.

Do they believe in failed 911 truth claims like weiler; without evidence. I would be skeptical of your friends.

When will they sign up and teach skepticism, and critical thinking... the opposite of weiler...

Are your friends CTers. I am skeptical they said what you said they said; I will wait for evidence. ETIC
 

After reading that and related pages I see they are confident that some psi experiments have proven it valid.

Be that as it may (or may not) be....What if?...Suppose good science one day proves beyond doubt that psi is valid. How would that impact the people who are now adamant that psi is invalid?

Would there be any automatic domino effects in other areas? Say...if remote viewing were proven valid, does that mean telepathy is too?
 
Re OP Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists.

I see above various theories on what motivates conspiracy theorists, such as delusions of grandeur and feeling superior. Unless I missed it, I did not see mention of 'outrage at perceived injustice/corruption' and call for justice. In other words, patriotism, when something like treason, coverup, or assassination conspiracy is suspected.
 
Re OP Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists.

I see above various theories on what motivates conspiracy theorists, such as delusions of grandeur and feeling superior. Unless I missed it, I did not see mention of 'outrage at perceived injustice/corruption' and call for justice. In other words, patriotism, when something like treason, coverup, or assassination conspiracy is suspected.

Patriotism is not questioning the government. It is listening, obediently, and without question to anything and everything they ever have to say, even if they contradict themselves, which as you well know, never do.

;)
 
Re OP Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists.

I see above various theories on what motivates conspiracy theorists, such as delusions of grandeur and feeling superior. Unless I missed it, I did not see mention of 'outrage at perceived injustice/corruption' and call for justice. In other words, patriotism, when something like treason, coverup, or assassination conspiracy is suspected.


Patriotism is accusing Bush of leading the country into war under false pretenses.
Patriotism is not accusing Bush of murdering Lizzie Borden's parents with a lightsaber.

Hope this helps.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom