Merged Psychology of Conspiracy Theoriests

[JayUtah]

From my observations of the beast I've come to the conclusion that they just want to attack a person or group.

Yes, I've heard it said that the useful property of religion is not that it creates a Deity, but that it creates a Devil. I have seen it in spades that a debate over a conspiracy theory ends with a complete abandonment of evidence-based discourse and devolves into how the proponent's critics can possibly trust or defend such a nefarious Power That Is.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

This guy.
http://geon.usc.edu/~biederman/

A sector of his studies is the neurological basis for pleasure. And as part of that, he studied some of the various ways belief causes pleasure. And one of them was the belief that you know or have discovered something profound that has been hidden from others. There is a literal neurological pay-off from believing that you're "in the know" on something, or can see or discern something others can't.

So yeah, according to him, every time you find some cognitively appreciable way of reasserting, "Ha! That clever Warren Commission thought they could pull one over on me!" you get a snootful of endorphins.

 

[JayUtah]

Ha! Good point; taftfan has so focused on the word "conspiracy" that he's forgotten "theory" is a part of the equation too.

Indeed. His first post was "There have been conspiracies, therefore conspiracy theories are valid." His second post was "The people who uncovered those conspiracies were conspiracy theorists." No. He just can't seem to see the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. And those are the people who make very poor investigators.

 

[dudalb]

The Lincoln Assisnation is a good example of the difference between a real life Conspiracy and a Conspiracy Fantasy.
The real conspiracy was a small group of disgruntled pro Confederates, led by a washed up Ham actor, who just got very lucky.
The Conspiracy Fantasy makes John Wilkes Booth and company just the tools of a vastly greater conspiracy,ranging from the merely implausible (High ranking confederate officials were in on it) to the out and out insane (International Bankers were behind it, or in one really prime theory,The Catholic Church).

 

[Ladewig]

Congressional Democrats posited a massive conspiracy involving Reagan, his national security staff, the CIA, and elements of the Pentagon in the Iran-Contra affair, and they noted that if Oliver North had shredded just a few more documents, the conspiracy may well have remained uncovered.

And Congressional Republicans posited a theory that President Obama was not born in Hawaii.

Speaking of which, Bobtaftfan, what is your current opinion of our current president's eligibility?

 

[Rincewind]

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.

For certain values of "true"?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

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.

Are you referencing They Live perchance?

I have a soft spot for that movie. It's hardly John Carpenter's finest hour, but it's not that bad a piece of (heavy-handed) satire either.

I doubt conspiracy theorists see it as such though, I'd speculate they view it the same way they view "Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out"; supporting evidence for their worldview.

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

 

[Ladewig]

Are you referencing They Live

Yes.
Many conspiracy theorists see themselves as the only people who stand between worldwide slavery and the dawn of a new era of enlightened freedom. In "They Live" the stakes really are that high - but that is fiction. The folks in 2009 who were pushing the African-Obama connection insisted that the stakes were that high as well: a sleeper-agent, secret-Muslim, anti-Christian, God-denying, gun-rounding-up, facist, socialist foreigner was about to destroy American Life as we know it.

This particular type of conspiracy theory fantasist imagines a new world in which people like himself go from mocked Internet poster to hero of the free world.

 

[carlitos]

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.

9/11 Truth as a Religion

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.

Really? Scare quotes around "investigation" regarding the Lincoln assassination?

 

[Oystein]

One trait I suspect is particularly pronounced in CTers - but I am not aware of having read anything scholarly about this, is their (our, actually) inability to fathom the size of the country, the planet, and their populations. That even the top 1% of the super-rich is still a very large mass of people, far far beyond anything we could ever grasp fully in our lives.
As a result, the power of individuals and small groups is routinely overestimated. There are so many people and organisations, egomaniacs and cabals, pundits and lobbies fighting for influence in ever shifting and fragile coalitions, that it is silly to assume there exists a vast conspiracy that is able to advance sweeping transformations that affect many nations over many decades.
And they overestimate their own influence, impact and power to effect any change.

It is of course true that a POTUS has a lot of power, but he depends on a large organisation to wield it for him; and he has lots of opposition. And his time is limited. Other elected officers may stay in office longer, but it is hard to stay there without giving up parts of one's own agenda and compromising substantially.
Multi-billionaires like Gates, Soros or Buffett can throw immense amounts of money at causes and make small economies crash or safe millions of lives. If they do so outside the USA, such as in Africa, that impact certainly is felt. Inside - less so.
Perhaps the best chance of preserving extraordinary personal influence for a longer time is had by autocratic rulers. Interestingly, many CTists project their hopes onto figures like Putin or the late Chavez.



Perhaps CTism is premised, in part, on a discrepancy between the overestimated power people ascribe to the elites, and their own perceived powerlessness - resulting in a strong wish to pretend they can have equal power.

(I am very unhappy with my wording - usually a good sign that it's not a sound idea yet...)

 

[carlitos]

One trait I suspect is particularly pronounced in CTers - but I am not aware of having read anything scholarly about this, is their (our, actually) inability to fathom the size of the country, the planet, and their populations. That even the top 1% of the super-rich is still a very large mass of people, far far beyond anything we could ever grasp fully in our lives.

This is an interesting point. Coming up on the Davos conference, Oxfam has done their annual PR push about income inequality. Sure the numbers are stark, but when you think about the numbers, they are less so. "The top 1%," in a population of 7 billion people, is 70 million people. That's not some uber-elite crowd worshiping an owl in the woods or having a secret pedophilia cult; that's 70 million people who have a net worth of around $1.5MM or more.

 

[rjh01]

The thread title and in the link grossly misinterprets the results.

From the comment in the extract.

As the first author of this study, I'd like to address a misleading headline that's been making the rounds lately: the idea that this study says that people who believe 9/11 conspiracy theories are better-adjusted than those who do not. This grossly misinterprets our results: this study says nothing about mental health, and its results do not justify any conclusions about one group of people being more or less "sane" than another.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

For certain values of "true"?

"♫ Truth after all is so poorly writ. ♫"

 

[BazBear]

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

Wow, that's some mighty fine spin regarding the results of that study.

What they found was that conspiracist commenters were more likely to argue against the opposing interpretation and less likely to argue in favor of their own interpretation, while the opposite was true of conventionalist commenters.

Of course they do. They usually don't have an coherent interpretation to argue for, so they are left with little option other than to attack the "official story".

 

[grmcdorman]

Guys, there is a thread for the JFK conspiracies (where all of this has already been discussed at great length).

 

[abaddon]

Guys, there is a thread for the JFK conspiracies (where all of this has already been discussed at great length).

I'm not sure that this is off topic at all. Surely it is a fine example of the original thread title, "Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists", no?

 

[JayUtah]

In fact...

No, none of this post establishes that conspiracy theorists take the same approach as legitimate investigators. If you want to quibble about head wounds, go check out the thread were it has already been discussed several times at length.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not sure that this is off topic at all. Surely it is a fine example of the original thread title, "Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists", no?

It is a fine example in that it (1) covers well-worn territory simply making the same claims that have been made many times before, and (2) does not go beyond attacking the conventional narrative. So it illustrates an important difference between conspiracism and real investigation. But there's a difference between referring to something for illustrative purposes and discussing whatever additional controversy the illustration promotes.

 

[Allen773]

To understand conspiracy "theorists", you need to imagine a world in which actual experts and professionals are really just government/NWO shills, and raving lunatics, professional anit-Semites/Holocaust deniers, snake oil salesmen, and other such shameless self-promoters are the real heroes.

 

[Jango]

Someone should do a thread on "Psychology of the Everything's Just a Coincidence Theorists."

People are convicted of conspiracy all the time in this country. We have laws against conspiracy because we know from long experience that conspiracies happen.

According to the U.S. Government, two of our presidents were killed by conspiracies: Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy.

The government convicted and hung several people for conspiring with John Wilkes Booth to kill Lincoln. The government adamantly insisted that Lincoln was killed by a conspiracy.

A select committee of the House of Representatives concluded that Kennedy was probably killed by a conspiracy. The chief counsel, his assistants, and the staff investigators made it clear in subsequent books that they were certain that a conspiracy killed Kennedy.

Also, there was a conspiracy to depose FDR. The plot was foiled before it could swing into action because one of the generals the plotters approached ratted on them. True to form, the government and the press denied there had been a plot, but subsequent research has refuted that cover-up.

http://www.ctka.net/pr399-fdr.html

Congressional Democrats posited a massive conspiracy involving Reagan, his national security staff, the CIA, and elements of the Pentagon in the Iran-Contra affair, and they noted that if Oliver North had shredded just a few more documents, the conspiracy may well have remained uncovered.

And on and on and on we could go.