Merged Psychology of Conspiracy Theoriests

[Ape of Good Hope]

Regarding the psychology of conspiracists: when I was younger I did buy into some conspiracies, having thought I'd discovered something new. This was due to lack of education on my part, unawareness of the rigors of - and lack of respect for - academia. Which is probably not that uncommon.

Exhibit A - UK 'scripted reality' star Gemma Collins on topical comedy quiz show '8 Out Of 10 Cats', holding forth on worrying gas, The News, and David Icke:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcR3MkKcJp4&t=11m40s

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Exhibit A - UK 'scripted reality' star Gemma Collins on topical comedy quiz show '8 Out Of 10 Cats', holding forth on worrying gas, The News, and David Icke:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcR3MkKcJp4&t=11m40s

Made it to 12:40

 

[JayUtah]

I didn't want to simply refer to debunking sites when responding to conspiracists. This involved me having to research deeper.

As the author of one of those "debunking sites," I can say I was trying to save you the trouble. But certainly not deprive you of the pleasure. Well, actually I was trying to save myself the trouble. In the mid-1990s I realized that the Apollo hoax was a long drive right down the middle of my professional fairway, and within a few years more and more people were coming to me asking the same questions. I started my site as a repository of the answers to common questions -- just an ever-growing FAQ -- so that I didn't have to keep typing the same responses.

I found that field experts are very willing to impart information (and their time) if approached correctly...

From my perspective, the aerospace industries and government agencies have always been far more cooperative than conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists are great seekers of publicity, but scrupulously avoid any exercise that would create any real accountability. They are largely evasive and secretive.

I stopped eventually due to the time spent on researching and responding, only for the goals to be continually shifted when debating.

Conspiracy theorists don't like the prospect of being wrong, and they don't the prospect of having to prove they're right. Hence most conspiracy debates devolve quite quickly into some flavor of a rhetorical quagmire over who has to do more homework.

But more to the point, conspiracy theorists don't like the prospect of being in the mainstream. Ironically that means they don't want to win the debate either, at least in the sense of having their hypothesis widely accepted and believed. That would make their theory the mainstream, and then they'd just be a few voices among millions. There's no thrill there, no payoff.

Nobody roots for Goliath; they root for David. The thrill of conspiracism is the belief in being right, but also being in a small minority who is right, having triumphed (or in the process of triumphing) over insurmountable opposition.

When you understand this, you realize the purpose of debate among conspiracy theorists is not to test ideas or resolve ambiguity, but to prolong the debate. Conspiracy theorists don't fear being wrong. They fear being irrelevant.

Just recently Bart Sibrel posted to YouTube a bootleg of a 2003 documentary I appeared in, saying the reason his material wasn't included was because it was too good and the producers couldn't refute it. A total lie, of course. But the subtext is, "I was left out! I'm relevant! I'm important!" He doesn't even mind get slugged in the face by astronauts, as long as he gets to write himself into the Apollo saga. Similarly I worked on an unaired pilot for the History Channel (before they went all Bigfoot on us) in which we interviewed the late Ralph Rene -- his major complaint was that all the other conspiracy theorists had stolen his thunder and taken center stage away from him.

As Oscar Wilde said, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."

The problem with conspiracies related to UFOs etc - it seems difficult to be able get your hands on any real data or information to have a worthwhile discussion about it.

That's the nail hit. Many other conspiracy theories are based around happenstance events like UFO sightings, assassinations, school shootings, and terrorist attacks. As such, everything we know about them must be pieced together in retrospect.

Apollo was an affirmatively planned, meticulously documented achievement involving many people of all walks of life. There simply isn't much factual ambiguity into which a conspiracy theorist can drive a wedge. The ambiguity in that arena is not the dearth of fact, but a proper understanding of the facts. Apollo is literally rocket science, and that means a lot of the intended audience for a conspiracy theory won't have the specialized knowledge to see through it. All the author has to do is wave his hands sensationally and yell "Radiation!" and the gullible folk will assume he knows what he's talking about.

...I think this interest was a catalyst that recently propelled me into undergraduate study.

I think you have the right approach. The smartest thing any person can do is to realize he needs more knowledge.

 

[Hellbound]

Conspiracy theorists don't fear being wrong.

Well, I would have thought THAT would be obvious by now.

 

[dudalb]

Well, I would have thought THAT would be obvious by now.

In this case, fear is the beginning of wisdom....

 

[Ladewig]

While looking for something else, I came across this all-too-sadly common description of the powers that be.

http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2...ber-24-2015-you-have-been-warned-2465860.html

Lindsey Williams, the chaplain on the Alaska pipeline of the 70’s made friends with many of the ruling elite. He was told that the elite consider themselves to be gentlemen, and think not informing the general public of their plans is unsportsmanlike – that they need to tell the people so they use news and movies to put forth their fair warning. Are we expecting the world elite to come out on worldwide television and say, “There’s a meteor coming”? No. Instead they’re going to do it very subtly. This makes them feel empowered to see their victims totally helpless and unable to prevent their own demise after given fair warning. So, have the elite given us fair warning that there’s a meteor coming? Have they?

They feel compelled to warn us in such a way that 99.999% of the population will not recognize the warning.

 

[Jango]

Chomsly may be a class or five better than the truly nutty philosophers of CT, but he has his own conspiratoid way of thinking, of making lots of things fit his favorite patterns that really shouldn't.

Not too long before 9/11, perhaps as late as 2000, I discovered Chomsky for me, and around the same time Christopher Hitchens. Both critical commentators on the left, both very sharp brains and great with words.
Then came 9/11
And the two landed on opposite sides of policy recommendations. Because each had his own set of blinders - and I ended up following neither (on that subject - remained a Hitchens fan till is death on many other issues). Chomsky bored me eventually. No matter what happens - evil Washington! *yawn*

I guess it's best to remain critical towards everybody - every school, every authority, and decide whom to follow on a case by case schedule, based on merit.

And throughout his many books and speaking engagements, he has shown why he views the U.S. Government in the manner that he does. 'Evil' is not only a subjective term, it is an emotional one. Chomsky rarely delves into emotionality from what I've seen, however, he does relate the propensity for blowback, which is a response to an action of ours. Which is where things get complicated. As a citizen of the U.S., I do not want my country or my fellow citizens being attacked by foreigners (let alone by fellow Americans) here in the United States or abroad. Logically, I realize that this is a blatant bias. Nevertheless, this is the place where my life began, the place I know and the place I sleep every night. In that regard, Chomsky has taken it upon himself to make a strictly moral argument against a physical reality, that of geopolitics and the survival and stature of this nation which requires (cold) logic in pragmatic decision making. To get where the U.S. has, to have what we still do and the prospect of more-and-better to come is astounding and really is quite extraordinary when viewed from our starting point. Nevertheless, the flip-side of our success has almost always come with others being stepped on so we could reach our goals. Chomsky goes into many areas, such as public relations/propaganda/media, where he combats the narratives of the government which are spun through the pundits, media, think tanks and academia, but is often enough quite glaringly wrong, which is reflected by their own official history and the gulf of difference between the public and private worlds of government.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

While looking for something else, I came across this all-too-sadly common description of the powers that be.
Are we expecting the world elite to come out on worldwide television and say, “There’s a meteor coming”? No. Instead they’re going to do it very subtly. This makes them feel empowered to see their victims totally helpless and unable to prevent their own demise after given fair warning. So, have the elite given us fair warning that there’s a meteor coming? Have they?

They feel compelled to warn us in such a way that 99.999% of the population will not recognize the warning.

How on earth do they expect to survive this event if they refuse to warn the very people who could save them? Without food stocks or transport to their secret New Zealand bunkers, not to mention not organising any global effort to deflect or destroy the meteor, how does this help the elite? Plus, I would have thought that killing all their actual and potential customers might possibly dent their profits a bit.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ever notice that the conspirators are always utterly unable to keep secrets secret?

 

[Jango]

Why do they need it to be kept hush-hush when affluent people can kill other people and just get sentenced probation and get sent to rehab for it: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/05/us/texas-affluenza-teen/

If you haven't noticed by now, the game is certainly rigged.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why do they need it to be kept hush-hush when affluent people can kill other people and just get sentenced probation and get sent to rehab for it: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/05/us/texas-affluenza-teen/

If you haven't noticed by now, the game is certainly rigged.

It's called "the real world", and it's infested with humans. Come visit someday, okay?

 

[Ladewig]

Why do they need it to be kept hush-hush when affluent people can kill other people and just get sentenced probation and get sent to rehab for it: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/05/us/texas-affluenza-teen/
.

Really?
Aren't we talking about the type of people who commit murder and are never even arrested? In fact, aren't we talking about the type of people who commit murder and make it look so much like an accident that the police never even open a homicide case?

I am just playing.
On a more serious note, you do understand why a single data point is not evidence of any level of any conspiracy, don't you?

............

Summing up. There is little doubt that the power elite wants to do all sorts of stuff; but wanting to do something is not the same as having the ability to something.

 

[Jango]

Really?
Aren't we talking about the type of people who commit murder and are never even arrested? In fact, aren't we talking about the type of people who commit murder and make it look so much like an accident that the police never even open a homicide case?

I am just playing.
On a more serious note, you do understand why a single data point is not evidence of any level of any conspiracy, don't you?

............

Summing up. There is little doubt that the power elite wants to do all sorts of stuff; but wanting to do something is not the same as having the ability to something.

Where does this lack of ability exist? It certainly isn't on moral grounds. So what technical abilities, in your opinion, are lacking?

 

[Oystein]

Where does this lack of ability exist? It certainly isn't on moral grounds. So what technical abilities, in your opinion, are lacking?

Loaded question is loaded.

 

[Oystein]

And throughout his many books and speaking engagements, he has shown why he views the U.S. Government in the manner that he does. 'Evil' is not only a subjective term, it is an emotional one. Chomsky rarely delves into emotionality from what I've seen, however, he does relate the propensity for blowback, which is a response to an action of ours. Which is where things get complicated. As a citizen of the U.S., I do not want my country or my fellow citizens being attacked by foreigners (let alone by fellow Americans) here in the United States or abroad. Logically, I realize that this is a blatant bias. Nevertheless, this is the place where my life began, the place I know and the place I sleep every night. In that regard, Chomsky has taken it upon himself to make a strictly moral argument against a physical reality, that of geopolitics and the survival and stature of this nation which requires (cold) logic in pragmatic decision making. To get where the U.S. has, to have what we still do and the prospect of more-and-better to come is astounding and really is quite extraordinary when viewed from our starting point. Nevertheless, the flip-side of our success has almost always come with others being stepped on so we could reach our goals. Chomsky goes into many areas, such as public relations/propaganda/media, where he combats the narratives of the government which are spun through the pundits, media, think tanks and academia, but is often enough quite glaringly wrong, which is reflected by their own official history and the gulf of difference between the public and private worlds of government.

I have found that two of Chomsky's favority concepts - blowback and the mechanisms of auto-mainstreaming media propaganda model - are helpful to understand many events and our perception thereof.

What you describe is a world that isn't win-win throughout - and you are right. Doesn't automatically mean that the actors that win while others lose are necessarily evil.
Chomsky may be writing and talking in a cool, non-emotional way, but what he talks about involves many emotions, that must go into the analysis. Blowback often doesn't occur because losers assess their options rationally, but because they are hurt. (ETA Manufacturing Consent was dedicated to a social psychologist - that's overt reference to human emotion throughout society.

 

[threadworm]

Here's an interesting perspective on the mindset of the conspiracy theorist.

This article:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118093#ack

is a report on a study where some Italian researchers looked at how people respond to Facebook posts about conspiracy theories.

Here's how it gets translated in the mind a DIFbat:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=290761

US/UK Govt's Admit To Trolling Conspiracy Sites

The US and UK govt, through the Public Library Of Science, have been doing a study, by trolling conspiracy theorist in forums just like this one...

and that:

So when I call someone a shill mods, I am more than likely correct, because 97% of the people reading about the conspiracy, believe in the conspiracy, and the other 3% are shills being "parodistic and sarcastic.", according to our taxpayer funded trolls.

Unfortunately for this person, nowhere in the article does anyone say that they have 'trolled' conspiracy sites, or that they are government agents of any kind, and in fact all the data are collected from that which is publicly available on Facebook.

But then, why let facts stand in the way of a good bit of paranoid delusional fantasy?

 

[Brainster]

While looking for something else, I came across this all-too-sadly common description of the powers that be.

http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2...ber-24-2015-you-have-been-warned-2465860.html

They feel compelled to warn us in such a way that 99.999% of the population will not recognize the warning.

The way it's been "explained" to me is that whatever group of elites (Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, the SSOSV) you are trying to join, requires you to semi-confess on national TV, so that if you ever go renegade, they can whip out the videotape inculpating you.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

(CT believer): "The mainstream media can't be trusted! It's full of lies!"
(Me): "OK. if you say so".
(CT believer): "Look! (Insert celebrity name here) confessed to being in a conspiracy on national TV! So it's true!"
(Me): "Um....?"
It's a constant refrain from conspiracy theorists that the MSM can't be trusted, unless they publish something that agrees with their views, in which case it's suddenly completely credible. Before joining this forum, I had many debates on Facebook, and never managed to get a clear answer to this dichotomy.

 

[Jango]

Because a duality exists. The media does not strictly tell the truth or lies all of the time. They lie, tell the truth and fall somewhere in between with lies and truth mixed together. Nothing complicated to understand.

 

[JayUtah]

Because a duality exists. The media does not strictly tell the truth or lies all of the time. They lie, tell the truth and fall somewhere in between with lies and truth mixed together. Nothing complicated to understand.

So tell us how you personally figure out when the mainstream media is telling the truth and when it's spewing propaganda. If it's not that complicated to understand, it shouldn't be very hard for you to explain.