Merged Psychology of Conspiracy Theoriests

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I see conspiracy theories as "information age religions". Every aspect of religion is in there: belief in a higher power (in form of all powerful conspirators), proselytizing (did I spell that right?), creation of meaning in ultimately meaningless events and of course the promise of deliverance once everybody is convinced and the conspiracy uncovered, leaving more "worthy" people to wield the conspirators powers.

CTers predate "the information age".

 

[JayUtah]

I think that's psychological projection^WP, rather than transference.

Probably. A more apt example of psychological transference in conspiracism might be when a conspiracy theorist identifies his ordinary critics as some sort of agent or shill for the Powers That Be. The conspiracist often seems to deny that his critics can have reached their conclusions as a matter of free mind. Even this is tenuous as an example of transference.

In contrast a particular form of projection occurs very often among conspiracy theorists. As we've learned through rigorous study, conspiracism is not so much a rational pursuit of an alternative to the conventional narrative as it is a rejection of all conventional narratives and titular authority. The conspiracy theorist often thus embraces many or all conspiracy theories because what they have in common is a rejection of whatever conventional narrative applies in that case.

Conversely, conspiracy rhetoric often assumes that if conspiracism is based on a wholesale rejection of conventional interpretation, then objection to conspiracism must derive from a wholesale love of it -- i.e., an irrational love and acceptance of it. Thus someone who disputes a conspiracy theory is often wrongly believed to dispute it on the basis of irrational or uninformed devotion to the conventional narrative. Hence the epithet "sheeple."

Analogously, disputing a conspiracy theory is also sometimes interpreted as a knee-jerk response to a minority narrative. As conspiracy theorists reflexively reject conventional views, so they believe their critics reflexively reject novel or minority views.

There seems to be very little room in the conspiracist's perspective for the notion that a person can dispute or reject a conspiracy theory on rational and evidentiary grounds. And I believe this is a consequence of a spectrum of largely unconscious projection behaviors.

 

[JayUtah]

CTers predate "the information age".

Undoubtedly, but a better rendition of Ts4EVER's observation -- with which I happen to agree -- is that conspiracism is the modern evolution of superstition, if religion were considered an organized, systematized example of superstition.

Without delving into a lengthy treatise on the properties of religion and superstition, I offer the axiom that all these systems rely on some instance of a supernatural archetype. Religion offers angels and demons, good and evil spirits, with powers that extend beyond that of mere mortals. Some mortals are chosen as prophets, apostles -- special messengers, warriors, and lawgivers within the context of this superstition. As humans become more enamored of reason, we invent new ways of thinking about these archetypes. Space aliens, the spirits of the departed, and political power figures become the new demons (although often space aliens are also cast as saviors). And consequently new humans are designated as the messengers and warriors.

Thus in conspiracism there are the designated Powers That Be, who have evil intent and powers beyond that of mere mortals. In this case, eschewing true supernatural powers, the hypothetical conspirators -- the Powers That Be -- are simply assumed to have more ordinary earthly power. But enough to wreak the havoc that, as in superstition and religion, require extraordinary measures to combat.

Enter the conspiracy theorists, as the prophets, evangelists, and spiritual warriors of the "Information Age." The name becomes defensible when you see that conspiracism preaches the faith of control of information. Every single conspiracy theory relies on the premise that control of information is the currency of the rhetorical economy. The holy water and crucifix of the modern Van Helsing is the supposed discovery and disclosure of gnostic truths.

 

[turingtest]

Undoubtedly, but a better rendition of Ts4EVER's observation -- with which I happen to agree -- is that conspiracism is the modern evolution of superstition, if religion were considered an organized, systematized example of superstition.

Without delving into a lengthy treatise on the properties of religion and superstition, I offer the axiom that all these systems rely on some instance of a supernatural archetype. Religion offers angels and demons, good and evil spirits, with powers that extend beyond that of mere mortals. Some mortals are chosen as prophets, apostles -- special messengers, warriors, and lawgivers within the context of this superstition. As humans become more enamored of reason, we invent new ways of thinking about these archetypes. Space aliens, the spirits of the departed, and political power figures become the new demons (although often space aliens are also cast as saviors). And consequently new humans are designated as the messengers and warriors.

Thus in conspiracism there are the designated Powers That Be, who have evil intent and powers beyond that of mere mortals. In this case, eschewing true supernatural powers, the hypothetical conspirators -- the Powers That Be -- are simply assumed to have more ordinary earthly power. But enough to wreak the havoc that, as in superstition and religion, require extraordinary measures to combat.

Enter the conspiracy theorists, as the prophets, evangelists, and spiritual warriors of the "Information Age." The name becomes defensible when you see that conspiracism preaches the faith of control of information. Every single conspiracy theory relies on the premise that control of information is the currency of the rhetorical economy. The holy water and crucifix of the modern Van Helsing is the supposed discovery and disclosure of gnostic truths.

It might also be helpful to clarify a little more the term "information age." It isn't necessarily defined, to me, by the Internet, TV, or even radio; any age in which information was disseminated by any mass means, even if it seems to us like an anachronistic means (like- gasp!- books), could be seen as an information age. If a religious belief could be propagated by less-than-modern methods, there's no reason but contemporary hubris to imagine it would take more to spread a conspiracy belief. There's no doubt that the Internet, etc., intensify and speed up the propagation, but that doesn't make "information" an either-or effect.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Undoubtedly, but a better rendition of Ts4EVER's observation -- with which I happen to agree -- is that conspiracism is the modern evolution of superstition, if religion were considered an organized, systematized example of superstition.

From my observations of the beast I've come to the conclusion that they just want to attack a person or group. Using the event as a framework for their libel, slander, and calumny they attempt to destroy their target. And just as wartime propaganda is largely unconcerned with fact, they are unconcerned with the accuracy of their claims. This makes it impossible to get them to admit something's a fatal flaw to their theories, they just don't care. It's "out there" and that's all that matters.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Once again we get cases where conspiracies were proven. But not proven by conspiracy theorists. This points up nicely the ineptitude of CTers.

Uh, your history is a bit off.

The Republicans were claiming there was a conspiracy before Lincoln had even expired. So that makes them "conspiracy theorists." And, needless to say, they were the ones who conducted the "investigation," such as it was.

A number of the HSCA staffers were known critics of the lone-gunman theory, and they were the ones who dug up the best evidence of a plot, e.g., Gaeton Fonzi, and their research helped force the reluctant chief counsel to dig more deeply into the case. Many of the leads that the HSCA developed were first discovered by conspiracy theorists.

In the case of Iran-Contra, the people who had routinely accused Reagan, the CIA, and the Pentagon of all sorts of nefarious schemes were the ones who proved to be the most thorough investigators, such as the ultra-liberals and their staffers of the Iran-Contra select committee.

 

[Ladewig]

Because the purpose of conspiracism is not to discover the truth, but to show how clever the conspiracy theorist is. Therefore the neurological payoff of discovering a plethora of cleverly hidden "clues."

I had never thought of it that way, but it makes sense. Thanks.

ETA
I guess that also explains their need to yell "false flag" whenever anything happens. They have the special sunglasses that allow them to accurately see how evil the power structure is. They have the cleverness to see everything in the "correct" way.

 

[Belz...]

The Republicans were claiming there was a conspiracy before Lincoln had even expired. So that makes them "conspiracy theorists."

No it doesn't. Lean what the term means.

 

[Ladewig]

It might also be helpful to clarify a little more the term "information age."

Oh, that is exactly what they want you to do because we are no longer in the Information Age; we are in the Disiformation Age !!11!!

It isn't necessarily defined, to me, by the Internet, TV, or even radio; any age in which information was disseminated by any mass means, even if it seems to us like an anachronistic means (like- gasp!- books), could be seen as an information age. If a religious belief could be propagated by less-than-modern methods, there's no reason but contemporary hubris to imagine it would take more to spread a conspiracy belief. There's no doubt that the Internet, etc., intensify and speed up the propagation, but that doesn't make "information" an either-or effect.

I can agree. "The Jews are amoral, untrustworthy, violent schemers" was popular even before literacy was widespread.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Uh, your history is a bit off.

The Republicans were claiming there was a conspiracy before Lincoln had even expired. So that makes them "conspiracy theorists." And, needless to say, they were the ones who conducted the "investigation," such as it was.

A number of the HSCA staffers were known critics of the lone-gunman theory, and they were the ones who dug up the best evidence of a plot, e.g., Gaeton Fonzi, and their research helped force the reluctant chief counsel to dig more deeply into the case. Many of the leads that the HSCA developed were first discovered by conspiracy theorists.

In the case of Iran-Contra, the people who had routinely accused Reagan, the CIA, and the Pentagon of all sorts of nefarious schemes were the ones who proved to be the most thorough investigators, such as the ultra-liberals and their staffers of the Iran-Contra select committee.

Have any JFK conspiracy theorists identified an alternative coherent account of events that addresses all the existing evidence?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Uh, your history is a bit off.

The Republicans were claiming there was a conspiracy before Lincoln had even expired. So that makes them "conspiracy theorists." And, needless to say, they were the ones who conducted the "investigation," such as it was.

A number of the HSCA staffers were known critics of the lone-gunman theory, and they were the ones who dug up the best evidence of a plot, e.g., Gaeton Fonzi, and their research helped force the reluctant chief counsel to dig more deeply into the case. Many of the leads that the HSCA developed were first discovered by conspiracy theorists.

In the case of Iran-Contra, the people who had routinely accused Reagan, the CIA, and the Pentagon of all sorts of nefarious schemes were the ones who proved to be the most thorough investigators, such as the ultra-liberals and their staffers of the Iran-Contra select committee.

You still don't understand the difference between conspiracies and the conspiracy mythology you guys feed on.

ETA: A guy named Julius was pretty sure there was a conspiracy afoot, but he didn't get that information from Abovetopsecret.crap.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No it doesn't. Lean what the term means.

Give the guy a break, they don't print that kind of thing in the Chicago Daily Tribune.

 

[BazBear]

Have any JFK conspiracy theorists identified an alternative coherent account of events that addresses all the existing evidence?

Well there is the dented shell casing....

In other news, the Kido Butai still didn't transmit.

 

[turingtest]

Have any JFK conspiracy theorists identified an alternative coherent account of events that addresses all the existing evidence?

Ha! Good point; taftfan has so focused on the word "conspiracy" that he's forgotten "theory" is a part of the equation too. There have been (and are) real conspiracies, but that doesn't make all conspiracy theories equally real (or theorists equally credible, no matter how much taftfan tries to spin it that way); some of them aren't even really theories, since they lack any coherence or ability to stand on their own legs in explanatory power for the entirety of the evidence.

 

[dudalb]

Conspriacy Theorist are the Sanest of All...

http://thespiritscience.net/2014/11...onspiracy-theorists-are-the-most-sane-of-all/

 

[Oystein]

I covered this here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10421771#post10421771

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Some great comments. They really see themselves as heroes there.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I suspect a conspiracy to produce those results.

I haven't read the article. I don't know any of the people involved. I'm not familiar with the science involved.

So it must be true.

 

[dudalb]

I covered this here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10421771#post10421771

I have no problems with a merge.

I found this line on IMDB (Internet Movie Data Base) by a user who had hijacked a thread on the hit movie "American SNiper" to push his conspiracy theories.

 

[JayUtah]

Uh, your history is a bit off.

Your methodology is way off.

No, don't try to claim that everyone is a conspiracy theorist at heart, or that anyone who investigates and uncovers something is first a conspiracy theorist. There are vast gulfs of difference between what real investigators do and what you do.

Yes, every fruitful investigation starts with a hypothesis which, at that moment, is untested and unproved. The difference is that a real investigation takes it somewhere. They don't sit for decades on the hypothesis like conspiracy theorists do. That's why we call them conspiracy theorists.

And fruitful investigations hypothesis something better than, "The official story is wrong!" A conspiracy theory is based primarily on a detractive hypothesis. From that you can diverge anywhere -- and conspiracy theorists do. That's why they never converge on anything. The detractive hypothesis is confirmed by psychologists; conspiracy theorists are more about rejecting the conventional narrative than about looking for some better alternative.

Let's see, Lincoln. Seward was attacked only minutes after Lincoln was shot. Within a few hours D.C. police had put together enough of the story to be fairly certain a conspiracy was responsible for both attacks. That's not a conspiracy theory -- that's a reasonable hypothesis based on facts. There was no "The official story is wrong!" nonsense. The conspiracy suspicion was the official story. And yes, regardless of political affiliation, the conspiracy was investigated and proved within a short time. They didn't drag it on and on as conspiracy theorists do. They didn't write an endless stream of books trying to show how clever they were as investigators.

Let's see, the HSCA. You're trying to tell us they came into it doubting the lone gunman theory. You're trying to tell us they legitimized the conspiracy theories. That's a bit disingenuous, isn't it? Because what did their findings show: first, that Kennedy was killed by no person other than Oswald. While they inferred there might have been another shot fired, that's as far as they got. Which leads us to the other pertinent finding: that no identification of another conspirator, or the nature of any conspiracy, could be discovered. The committee didn't buy into any of the conspiracy theories they were presented with. So the HSCA substantively confirmed the Warren Commission, issued its confirmatory findings, disbanded, and went their way satisfied. And all those "helpful" conspiracy theorists? What did they do? Well, I guess they went back to setting up their posters in Dealey Plaza and making YouTube videos repeating the same things over and over for decades without even wanting to solve the crime of Kennedy's murder.

You see where we're going with this? The difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theorists is that people who investigate and uncover conspiracies actually do so. They either converge toward an affirmative scenario which they then prove, or they go away. Conspiracy theorists just meander over the same ground over and over again, united on absolutely nothing except that "The official story is wrong!"

Let's see, Iran-Contra. Yes, the accusers of Reagan's covert machine formed an affirmative hypothesis, tested it, found evidence in favor of it, and proved it to a suitable standard of proof. They didn't waffle about for decades doing little differently.

No, not everyone is somehow a conspiracy theorist. No, conspiracism is not the same as investigation. No, conspiracy theorists are not a noble warrior for truth, a watchful protector, a noisy guardian.