Merged Psychology of Conspiracy Theoriests

[jakesteele]

[

QUOTE=JayUtah;10624098]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.

I honestly can't determine who you think you're fooling here?

[/QUOTE]

Polite is a very rare word on the site.

It's my intent to rub in dog poo the rude, snotty, condescending, insulting brats that are so insufferably self righteous.

Debunker's Law of Omnicient Absolute – Their perspective and opinions are All knowing and All Seeing and beyond reproach. Anybody that’s “right thinking” will see that as self-evident. Any differing opinion is therefore totally wrong (see Black and White/All-or-Nothing thinking)


Debunkers' Law of Immaculate Perception – they are the only ones who see reality exactly as it is unhindered by any cognitive biases. So therefore, to disagree with them is to disagree with reality itself.



You guys throw at what you call woos, kooks, nutters, etc., insult after insult and then get all up in arms when somebody does it to them. That is not polite and you should know that.

p.s. I only wish I could make a living out of this just like James Randi does with his thing...cha ching!

 

[jakesteele]

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.

WTF?

 

[jakesteele]

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.

All are very skeptical guys and one, while he doesn't actually believe in UFOs, conspiracies, none the less is open enough to study these things.

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.

Take it on faith that they were humoring me about this site being rude, snotty, condescending and insulting? You don't have to be a magician or a PhD. to know when someone is being insulting. Just look at some of the comments I've received about being nasty and insulting. See, you guys figured that out fast, didn't you?

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

They don't, except for the one guy who thinks the whole thing is suspicious.

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

I don't know, but it's a stupid question anyway.

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

No, they are not CTers. If you are skeptical they said what they said, too bad. What kind of evidence am I supposed to provide? Get on a conference call with you? Signed affidavits suit you? Or would you rather see emails...wait a minute, that damn Wizard of Menopause, Hillary Clinton, just erased them.

 

[carlitos]

Do you question the validity of the statement?

Yes, obviously. Are you saying that your quotes posted here are fake, but true?

 

[JohnG]

Debunker's Law of Omnicient Absolute

Omniscient

Debunkers' Law of Immaculate Perception – they are the only ones who see reality exactly as it is unhindered by any cognitive biases.

"Debunkers" are aware that cognitive biases exist and aware that EVERYONE falls prey to these biases at one time or another, which is one of the reasons why they are more successful than most others at avoiding them.

p.s. I only wish I could make a living out of this just like James Randi does with his thing...cha ching!

Professional "debunkers" don't get into it to become rich or if they do, they're doing something wrong. If your aim is to become rich, and you don't care how you go about it, may I suggest becoming a high profile psychic or faith healer?

WTF?

At last. Something we can agree on.

 

[beachnut]

No. Why can't you make your point? 'Cause you don't have one. Next technique, please.

Because you are too busy making the point for him, it is self evident. It is not the first time perfection by saying less has been ignored. Wish I had the time to compile the subtle list of perfection with pith. It is a work of art I can't match.

I am in awe

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Lots of people did, no arguments here and not just in history. I'm no fan of certain aspects of the US educational system, but there's a difference between saying that some, perhaps most US children get an inferior education compared to certain other industrialized countries and saying that US schoolchildren are trained to blindly trust all authority.

Exactly my point. Perhaps Jango will understand it this time.
Jango, you may also recollect before you got all frothy, that I didn't just ask if your definition of patriotism was taught at school: I asked if you could substantiate it from other sources as well, such as your government or other respected establishment figures. Would you care to do so?
I really don't understand this narrow, almost obsessive focus on the US education system, and your perception that I have an opinion of it despite not knowing anything about it. It's ironic, as it was when I said I had no opinion about it that started this rant.
You appear to be most determined not to answer my question. That is your right, of course. However, I would ask that you either quote me as saying that I am blindly arguing about a topic of which I know nothing, or withdraw it. That was naughty.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think this thread is an excellent example of why one should address the conspiracy claims rather than the conspiracy mythologist.

 

[Oystein]

The New York Times had an article yesterday on a new study about why people cling to their political opinions even as opposing facts emerge:
You’re Not Going to Change Your Mind by BEN TAPPIN, LESLIE VAN DER LEER and RYAN MCKAY.

This study is about political opinions, not conspiracy theories, however I feel that it can be applied to CTist opinions to the extent that those are politically motivated.

The study starts off with two biases that may be at work when people do not ingest new information that ought to make them change opinion:
a) Confirmation bias - this one's well known. A bias against information that contradicts what we think is factual.
b) Desirability bias - less known. A bias against information that contradicts what we wish to be factual.

It can often be difficult to disjoin these two biases, especially when people already do believe what they wish to believe. So the authors devised an experiment that can differentiate between the two: A month before the November 2016 election, they asked subject who they believed to win (Trump or Clinton), and who they wished to win. The interesting group was then those who believed the candidate would win who they did not wish to win. The authors exposed such people to empirical results that contradicted their beliefs or their wishes.

Read the article for detail.

The result was that they found much evidence for Desirability bias and little for Confirmation bias.


In laymen's words: Wishful thinking beats science.

Applied to CTists, this raises the question in me: Why would CTists wish that their government is so evil and kills kills kills?

 

[Saggy]

Applied to CTists, this raises the question in me: Why would CTists wish that their government is so evil and kills kills kills?

I think a better question is why do the skeptics deny that the U govt. kills etc., even when the president has an announced kill list ...

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-presidents-kill-list

and the military is dropping 26,000 bombs yearly on defenseless people in the middle east who pose no threat whatever to the US?

https://www.cfr.org/blog-post/how-many-bombs-did-united-states-drop-2016

 

[BStrong]

I think a better question is why do the skeptics deny that the U govt. kills etc., even when the president has an announced kill list ...

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-presidents-kill-list

and the military is dropping 26,000 bombs yearly on defenseless people in the middle east who pose no threat whatever to the US?

https://www.cfr.org/blog-post/how-many-bombs-did-united-states-drop-2016

The only person asserting the above is you.

It's been pointed out numerous times that the information you reference is available, which evidently was a surprise to you iirc.

Your position appears to be that Israel is pulling the strings and their devilishly clever Hebrew Voodoo has hoodwinked everyone but you, but as I've pointed out, your opinion on the subject isn't of much interest.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I think a better question is why do the skeptics deny that the U govt. kills etc., even when the president has an announced kill list ...

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-presidents-kill-list

and the military is dropping 26,000 bombs yearly on defenseless people in the middle east who pose no threat whatever to the US?

https://www.cfr.org/blog-post/how-many-bombs-did-united-states-drop-2016

I do find it irritating that so many conspiracy theorists, alt-right loons etc. seem so focused on the US that all other countries and peoples are reduced to mere shadows, passive puppets in the American power game, who are also irrelevant and expendable.
It is, of course, highly debatable (and I'm being kind here) to state that ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Taliban (amongst numerous other jihadist groups) pose no threat to the US. It is also ludicrous to say they are 'defenceless'.
That in itself is almost a side issue, because this mypoic concentration on the US ignores the reality that these groups present a very real threat to civilians and military alike across the Middle East, and also in Europe.
Saggy's argument appears to be that the US should stop all military operations in the ME. Again, this ignores completely that fact that America is only one of many countries involved in such actions, and also displays a colossal ignorance of what the consequences would be if ISIS, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the like were allowed a free hand. He seems complacently oblivious to the inevitable deaths of thousands that would ensue as Islamist fighters retook lost land and exacted revenge on those they had conquered. Add to that the ripple effect, which would inspire yet more terror attacks worldwide, and the added impetus to a jihadist movement dedicated to conquering the entire world, and you have a catastrophe of global proportions.
Now, while I am no cheerleader for bombing as a solution, I see no alternative to supporting the Kurds, the FSA and the Iraqi government in their struggle.
Finally, I note that the second of Saggy's links makes no mention of the targets of the bombings. Perhaps, Saggy, you could provide evidence that these actions have been carried out exclusively against defenceless civilians?

 

[Saggy]

Finally, I note that the second of Saggy's links makes no mention of the targets of the bombings. Perhaps, Saggy, you could provide evidence that these actions have been carried out exclusively against defenceless civilians?

I will leave that for you to ponder, a 'gedanken experiment' if you will.

 

[Praktik]

I do find it irritating that so many conspiracy theorists, alt-right loons etc. seem so focused on the US that all other countries and peoples are reduced to mere shadows, passive puppets in the American power game, who are also irrelevant and expendable.
It is, of course, highly debatable (and I'm being kind here) to state that ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Taliban (amongst numerous other jihadist groups) pose no threat to the US. It is also ludicrous to say they are 'defenceless'.
That in itself is almost a side issue, because this mypoic concentration on the US ignores the reality that these groups present a very real threat to civilians and military alike across the Middle East, and also in Europe.
Saggy's argument appears to be that the US should stop all military operations in the ME. Again, this ignores completely that fact that America is only one of many countries involved in such actions, and also displays a colossal ignorance of what the consequences would be if ISIS, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the like were allowed a free hand. He seems complacently oblivious to the inevitable deaths of thousands that would ensue as Islamist fighters retook lost land and exacted revenge on those they had conquered. Add to that the ripple effect, which would inspire yet more terror attacks worldwide, and the added impetus to a jihadist movement dedicated to conquering the entire world, and you have a catastrophe of global proportions.
Now, while I am no cheerleader for bombing as a solution, I see no alternative to supporting the Kurds, the FSA and the Iraqi government in their struggle.
Finally, I note that the second of Saggy's links makes no mention of the targets of the bombings. Perhaps, Saggy, you could provide evidence that these actions have been carried out exclusively against defenceless civilians?

I follow Micah zenko on twitter - and Airwars.org - the combination of which I think provides useful insight into the efficacy of ME drone and air strike campaigns and who is being hit by them.

The "official count" of civilians dead is an order of magnitude less than that compiled by Air Wars - its good to consult non-official sources for these as the biases that go into counting good and bad dead people by the people running these air campaigns can't really be trusted.

As a debunker though, please carry on dismantling the arguments of conspiracy theorists!

 

[Saggy]

I follow Micah zenko on twitter -

What do you make of this, idiocy?, irony?, .... tweeted by Zenko

"US surrounds and monitors Iran w/ 50,000 troops, Fifth Fleet, nuclear subs, regional bases, close allies. And yet is terrified."

 

[Praktik]

What do you make of this, idiocy?, irony?, .... tweeted by Zenko

"US surrounds and monitors Iran w/ 50,000 troops, Fifth Fleet, nuclear subs, regional bases, close allies. And yet is terrified."

Ya - pretty ridiculous when you consider the weight America places on fears, and the actual potential of those fears to project harm into America vs the potential of America to project harm to those fearsome enemies.

Sometimes its like America forgets its military is absolutely dominant, by orders of magnitude and has oceans on each side and an economic dynamo that's stronger than everyone else's!

And the Iran fixation in the American foreign policy establishment and political elite is perhaps most prominent *right now* - as the Trump administration has an unhealthy and irrational obsession with them that is giving Iran hawks a primacy they never enjoyed in the previous GOP and Democrat admins, even Dubya's didn't have a hard on this big for Iran!

In any event, is it surprising American policy makers are frail human beings with irrational obsessions and unfounded fears?

Not really.

And to tie all this back to conspiracy theory - all this goes to incompetence and frailty, things rarely ascribed to governments by conspiracy theorists.

 

[Praktik]

Soon Trump is going to end every speech on a Carthago delenda est kind of theme!

 

[Belz...]

I think a better question is why do the skeptics deny that the U govt. kills etc., even when the president has an announced kill list ...

The answer is: they make no such denial.

Telling you that a particular theory about a killing has no evidence or makes no sense isn't saying that governments never kill.

 

[Saggy]

Soon Trump is going to end every speech on a Carthago delenda est kind of theme!

Where have you been for the last 5 years ....


IRAN MUST BE DESTROYED! ALL HAIL ISRAEL! PAUL RYAN 2017 AIPAC SPEECH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnaqTq5vyHU

There is not one non-Zionist in the US media, government, or academia (save Arthur Butz) ...

 

[BStrong]

Where have you been for the last 5 years ....


IRAN MUST BE DESTROYED! ALL HAIL ISRAEL! PAUL RYAN 2017 AIPAC SPEECH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnaqTq5vyHU

There is not one non-Zionist in the US media, government, or academia (save Arthur Butz) ...
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/VnlozWS.jpg[/qimg]

And not one supporter of the Earl Turner club.