What Motivates Conspiracy Theorists?

[abaddon]

What a nutter!

I see your questions were answered.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I agree 100%

Cheers.

I did try to get the discussion back on topic, as it's an interesting one.

 

[fitzgibbon]

What motivates conspiracy theorists?

The desire to feel special.

Absolutely. They see themselves as modern-day John The Baptists, declaring the Word© in the stony ground of a psychic wilderness. The one significant difference in their MO is that if their particular section of wilderness attracts too many adherents, they move even further out into the psychic wilderness to claim stonier ground.

What do we, as society, do about it?

It pains me to say it, as I can be guilty of this, but we need stop marginalising CTists, since that feeds their self-isolation.

They don't want to be found. CTist comes and declares the Word©. Being questioned doesn't engage them as it would most people and being contradicted just reminds them how blind from their perspective everyone else is to the 'Truth' . They will self-isolate; you've seen all the death-by-mods that have happened over the years.

I think the JREF Forum rules are conducive to guiding a CTist out of the rabbit hole.

They are though rare's the CTist who'll entertain the notion that t'is they that're inhabiting the rabbit hole and not everyone else.

Get them to question their own claims while they are questioning the "powers that be".

We do. They won't. If they did, they wouldn't be special baptists anymore and would revert to (in their minds) being part of the problem instead of part of the solution

Fitz

 

[fitzgibbon]

Just as a follow-up, I was reading through the September issue of "The Walrus" and the Chris Hedges article about the States' gun culture had a good description that covers CTists' mindsets.
"Those who retreat into fantasy cannot engage in rational discussion, for fantasy is all they have left of their tattered self-esteem. When their myths are attacked, rather than a discussion of facts and evidence, it triggers a ferocious emotional backlash. The challenge of the myth threatens what is left of hope, and as the economy unravels, as the future looks more and more bleak, myth gains in potency."

Nicely sums things up, I'd say

Fitz

 

[Robrob]

Another CT tactic. If it had happened as predicted he was right but as it didn't happen as predicted it also proves he was right.

He's a kook. Everything from 911, 7/7,The Illuminati, climate change denial and world de-population to nazi fluoride in the concentration camps.

The NRA has actually used Obama not confiscating our guns as evidence of his plan to confiscate our guns.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

The CTs I've met tend to fall into a few general groups..

1. The naturally contrary: If everyone else says A then I say B!

2. The really gullible: Fall for every scam under the sun. A child-like inability to make sound judgements.

3. The Dunning-Kruger: they think they're a lot smarter than they really are. Actually, they're pretty ***** stupid.

4. The mentally ill: No snarky comment.

This is in no way a scientific breakdown, just a general observation about a few types I've met.

 

[kid meatball]

I had a thought about this the other day. I could see a shiny object in the sky, unidentifiable to the naked eye, but obviously some sort of aircraft. I couldn't positively identify it therefore it is a UFO. The problem starts for the CTer when they refuse the evidence of some other witness who could positively identify it as Westjet flight WS456, simply so they can revel in their illusion. They want it to be a UFO and will internally fight any logic or evidence that says otherwise.

For reference, see the idiots who think a lens flare is Nibiru.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Many, if not most people go through a stage of CT thinking. It's part of the natural learning process, and just one type of the many ways of thinking in this weird and wonderful world that there are to consider as part of a well-rounded education.

Most people eventually move away from it, or at least don't let it become their sole worldview. Either they think things through, do better research, or are actively opposed by critical thinkers.

The ones who cling to CTism despite being actively challenged by skeptics are those who probably have biological mental health problems and require counselling and/or meds or are beyond help.

 

[TofuFighter]

After a few years of 'arguing' with conspiracy theorists online, i have yet to have an experience where the evidence against the conspiracy has convinced a theorist that what they believe is not true.

I guess, much like religious people, it would take something extreme to wrest them from a belief that gives them comfort.

 

[Robrob]

There does seem to be a short circuit in their ability to sort the possible from the probable and the hypothetical from the factual.

I remember once around 2009-2010 having the thought how the current political climate would make it a perfect scenario if a President wanted to invalidate the 22nd Amendment. Other than a "oh, wow" moment and brief wondering if that could be a good screenplay - I never thought about it again.

The difference being a CT would have had the same thought and by virtue of imagining it, it would obviously be true.

 

[ferd burfle]

Perhaps a quick peek at his website may answer your questions.

All the offerings on his front page indicate that money, at least in part, is a motivator for some CTists.

ferd

 

[Mudcat]

All the offerings on his front page indicate that money, at least in part, is a motivator for some CTists.

That is definitely the case for maybe half of conspiracy theorists. You ask me, though, and I would say they are the most detestable of the lot.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

That is definitely the case for maybe half of conspiracy theorists. You ask me, though, and I would say they are the most detestable of the lot.

Why does that remind me of so many televangelists???

 

[Mudcat]

Why does that remind me of so many televangelists???

You too?

 

[blutoski]

All the offerings on his front page indicate that money, at least in part, is a motivator for some CTists.

Good point. I hadn't included fraud as a motive in my original model. Only 'motivated thinking,' which isn't the same.

 

[blutoski]

Good point. I hadn't included fraud as a motive in my original model. Only 'motivated thinking,' which isn't the same.

Here's an updated taxonomy:

• intrinsic
  • personality (there appears to be a 'consiprational' personality)
  • psychosis (intensity is transient, influenced by medication)
• extrinsic
  • misinformed (evidence limited to specific sources)
  • motivated (confirmation bias - seeks out evidence to mitigate cognitive dissonance)
  • mercenary (not actually believed - invented and distributed as part of a business model)

 

[LSSBB]

Here's an updated taxonomy:

• intrinsic
  • personality (there appears to be a 'consiprational' personality)
  • psychosis (intensity is transient, influenced by medication)
• extrinsic
  • misinformed (evidence limited to specific sources)
  • motivated (confirmation bias - seeks out evidence to mitigate cognitive dissonance)
  • mercenary (not actually believed - invented and distributed as part of a business model)

For intrinsic, I wonder whether there is a phobia regarding governments. Another possibility is a substitution of Government for God or Satan, an omnipotent deity with religious overtones, capable of supernatural acts of influence over man and machine.

 

[blutoski]

For intrinsic, I wonder whether there is a phobia regarding governments.

Not really. Most phobias are 'specific' (objects or events).

Anything more complex than that is usually considered rational or psychotic and therefore not a phobia per se.



Some phobias are components of CTs.

eg: fear of medical procedures, fear of injections

 

[Mark F]

After a few years of 'arguing' with conspiracy theorists online, i have yet to have an experience where the evidence against the conspiracy has convinced a theorist that what they believe is not true.

I guess, much like religious people, it would take something extreme to wrest them from a belief that gives them comfort.

I have had some succes, but then I try hard not argue with them. No name calling, no tinfoil hat references either. I slowly introduce them to logic but try to make them think they found it on their own. I try to give them an "ah ha" moment in a very non-adversarial way.

I address their questions, and try not to attack their beliefs letting them realize the belief is wrong on their own. I will usually start off with something like "I see your point, but..." or "You know, I found what you said very interesting so I checked into it and I discovered..." I start by giving them some credit but then slowly introduce the idea there may be more than one way to look at it or that some piece of information they are relying on is faulty. People are far more receptive if they don't feel they have to be defensive.

I had an ah-ha moment like that with a Truther last week over a Youtube video. I casually introduced the idea that the interview in the video had been doctored by careful editing to change the context of the remarks, then gave her the full transcript of the interview to prove it. I didn't say anyone lied or was trying to decieve, just that the way it was presented created a false impression. The Truther had a lot hanging on this remark apparently and was very mad at first. She didn't even speak to me for a few days but she just sent me an email this morning talking about comments in several other Youtube video's that she is now having doubts about.

Baby steps.

 

[kblood]

To sum up how and why I am doing what I have been doing for the last few few, we have to take a more historical look on the whole thing.

Back in the 80ies the world was suffering from the Cold War, and celebrated its end. It left a huge vacuum though when it comes to intelligence agencies, and good reasons to fund them. For a few years funding of intelligence services actually went downwards for the first time in a while. These agencies where not good at downsizing though. They were used to having whatever they needed, when they needed it.

Then in 1997 a group of people made PNAC. The Project for a New American Century. Its goal was to strengthen Americans presence in the world as a world power, and that goal was not something to happen anytime soon, unless something, like a new Pearl Harbor, was to happen. They wrote something like that in a report a year or two before 9/11, where the same people who wrote it, happened to be among George Bushs most trusted people. Amongst other things, handling his affairs in the Middle East.

Take a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States

A list of Federal Political Scandals. Presidents should not have the power to overrule the US Constitution, but that is what George W. Bush did when he signed the treaty that made it possible for the NSA to make PRISM, and listen in on US telephone calls without a warrant, since 2001.

It still took 5-6 years before PRISM was uncovered by Snowden, the should be, national hero.

Anyone care to guess what the focus on Syria is all about?

Come on, debate real conspiracy theories instead of just debating the people you think you understand so well.