Meet Oliver. Like many of his friends, Oliver thinks he is an expert on 9/11. He spends much of his spare time looking at conspiracist websites and his research has convinced him that the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, DC, of 11 September 2001 were an inside job. The aircraft impacts and resulting fires couldnt have caused the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center to collapse. The only viable explanation, he maintains, is that government agents planted explosives in advance. He realises, of course, that the government blames Al-Qaeda for 9/11 but his predictable response is pure Mandy Rice-Davies: they would say that, wouldnt they? Polling evidence suggests that Olivers views about 9/11 are by no means unusual. Indeed, peculiar theories about all manner of things are now widespread. There are conspiracy theories about the spread of AIDS, the 1969 Moon landings, UFOs, and the assassination of JFK. Sometimes, conspiracy theories turn out to be right Watergate really was a conspiracy but mostly they are bunkum. They are in fact vivid illustrations of a striking truth about human beings: however intelligent and knowledgeable we might be in other ways, many of us still believe the strangest things. You can find people who believe they were abducted by aliens, that the Holocaust never happened, and that cancer can be cured by positive thinking. A 2009 Harris Poll found that between one‑fifth and one‑quarter of Americans believe in reincarnation, astrology and the existence of witches. You name it, and there is probably someone out there who believes it. You realise, of course, that Olivers theory about 9/11 has little going for it, and this might make you wonder why he believes it. The question Why does Oliver believe that 9/11 was an inside job? is just a version of a more general question posed by the US skeptic Michael Shermer: why do people believe weird things? The weirder the belief, the stranger it seems that someone can have it. Asking why people believe weird things isnt like asking why they believe its raining as they look out of the window and see the rain pouring down. Its obvious why people believe its raining when they have compelling evidence, but its far from obvious why Oliver believes that 9/11 was an inside job when he has access to compelling evidence that it wasnt an inside job. http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/intellectual-character-of-conspiracy-theorists/ This is a really insightful article to the inter workings of a conspiracy theorist. You'll notice that not matter what crack pot theory these people are trying to convey to you, there's an exact pattern that they follow, when it comes to their logic. This is a must read.
Here's another good read about the CONSPIRACY MENTALITY http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225/full It's very dry, but it completely confirms what the author of the first article is getting at. There's a very clear checklist: Defensiveness when irrational beliefs are challenged. Belief in multiple conspiracies, the gunman on the grass knoll, 9/11 inside job, fake moon landings, etc etc. There's a shadowy secret society with a diabolical scheme to get everybody. Paranoia. A never ending process of using faulty logic to back their faulty logic. Allot of people get angry when they interact with conspiracy theorist, because they fail to see that this is an actual thought process, compared to just having a idiotic belief.
Psychologists Say: ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ SANE, and Government Dupes CRAZY and Hostile. Laurie Manwell, Univ of Guelph; anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing beliefs. Univ of Buffalo Prof Steven Hoffman; anti-conspiracy people prone to using irrational mechanisms (such as the “Conspiracy Theory” Label) to avoid personal conflict. Extreme irrationality of those who attack “CT's” exposed by Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State Univ. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article Now pro-conspiracy voices are more numerous and rational than anti-conspiracy ones and anti-Conspiracy people are like hostile, paranoid cranks. It gets better! Now there is a new breed called 'posers' who know little to nothing about the subject matter, claiming to be authoritative and they troll the forums with frivolous arguments and disinformation.
There arent any debunkers any more. The debunkers left the scene embarrassed when they found out the gubbermint left them high and dry with no evidence to defend the official lie. The only thing left out here defending the official lies are 'POSERS' and the only thing they have to prove truthers wrong is how well they can manufacture bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and prayers that they can slip it past the truthers without getting busted. Soon as truthers demand the hard evidence for them to prove the gubbermints claims that they support they become defensive and call names and cry foul ball and put them on ignore because they cant deal with the facts.
PSYCHOLOGY STUDY: CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ARE CRITICAL THINKERS THAT REJECT THE OFFICIAL STORY Submitted by IWB, on November 30th, 2014 Recent research into the psychology of conspiracy belief has highlighted the importance of belief systems in the acceptance or rejection of conspiracy theories. We examined a large sample of conspiracist (pro-conspiracy-theory) and conventionalist (anti-conspiracy-theory) comments on news websites in order to investigate the relative importance of promoting alternative explanations vs. rejecting conventional explanations for events. In accordance with our hypotheses, we found 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. However, conspiracist comments were more likely to explicitly put forward an account than conventionalist comments were. In addition, conspiracists were more likely to express mistrust and made more positive and fewer negative references to other conspiracy theories. The data also indicate that conspiracists were largely unwilling to apply the conspiracy theory label to their own beliefs and objected when others did so, lending support to the long-held suggestion that conspiracy belief carries a social stigma. Finally, conventionalist arguments tended to have a more hostile tone.
This is a really insightful graphic to the inter workings of jtrig posers. You'll notice that not matter what crack pot explanation these posers are trying to convey to you, there's an exact pattern that they follow, when it comes to their logic.
Some observations from interactions with CTists: a) The CTist often believes a multitude of conspiracy theories, and is receptive to the most inane stories that would ordinarily be dismissed on the grounds of simple reason by most. b) They often believe in conflicting hypotheses regarding the same incident simultaneously. c) Every person they encounter who does not agree with their stories is against them, often planted by TPTB. d) The opinion of academics is immaterial. The CTist often claims that academics are in the pay of TPTB, so their testimony is suspect. e) All evidence form a non-CT source is suspect (planted or disinfo etc.). Certain characteristics surface among CTists in general and although often denied, there is an inherent anti-Semitism underlying many; an irrational view of the government as an evil willed 'hive' animal; a strong belief in shills being employed to limit their freedom of speech (often targeted toward those who question etc.). Logic is often suspended in order to follow the call of confirmation bias, thus any attempt at objectivity is superficial at best, if at all. Therefore, faced with such limitations, logical and well developed arguments are immaterial when responding to arguments built upon some of the inane and fantastic premises we are often presented with (Controlled demolition on 9/11; nukes at ground zero; no-planes; chem-trails; Holocaust denial; Apollo Mission hoaxes, etc.).
The proof that the government was behind it is crushing. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=348380&p=1063729867#post1063729867 Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXA-enq65ng These professionals explain why so many Americans go into denial when shown the proof. Why Can't They See The Truth? Psychologists Help 9 11 Truth Deniers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xzmprkpxac
.Professionals' who happen to be rabid truthers who have cheapened their profession by losing their objectivity
I know very well what it is. This qualifies. Instead of attacking the message, you attack the character of the messenger. Classic Ad Hominem. Perhaps you don't know what it means.
It means 'against the man',talking smack about a group of people as wildly inconsistent in their accusations as truthers are,doesn't qualify.
It is textbook Ad Hominem, as you are directing the smack talking "against the man" rather than "against the argument". BTW, "Conspiracy theorists" and "truthers" are not the same thing.
Has the "NWO" conspiracy theory gone beyond the claimed "conspiracy theory" stage Yet? It seems to me that conventional news sources have been referring to it lately rather matter-of-factly as the goal of our neocons.
True, not all conspiracy theorists are 9/11 truthers, but all 9/11 truthers are conspiracy theorists by the material they post.
A big problem I have with many conspiracy theories is that they often place the cart before the horse in that the conclusion has already been reached and only evidence that is interpreted to support the predetermined conclusion is accepted. When I enter a discussion about a conspiracy I enter with an open mind. But when I review the evidence I often come to a different conclusion where my pointing out inconsistencies or alternative explanations is either met with silence, deflection, or personal attack. One should neither have an open mind to the point that the brain falls out nor such a closed mind that makes alternate explanations impossible to objectively entertain. A good theory is objective, subject to being wrong, and has the flexibility to change a conclusion based upon new evidence. The evidence should lead one to the conclusion not the other way around.
of course you realize the red is precisely what the gubmint and its supporters have done and posers continue to do. Not all theories are sublect to being wrong if that were true we have executed many very innocent alleged criminals. Though I agree with you in part.
a) The CTist often believes a multitude of conspiracy theories, and is receptive to the most inane stories that would ordinarily be dismissed on the grounds of simple reason by most. Posers rely gubmint ASSumptions then dodge when they cant provide evidence required to support the wild claims b) They often believe in conflicting hypotheses regarding the same incident simultaneously. Posers believe that invisible fire took out wtc 2 despite no one could find it. c) Every person they encounter who does not agree with their stories is against them, often planted by TPTB. Truthers know its just a bunch of posers pretending to be something they are not. d) The opinion of academics is immaterial. The CTist often claims that academics are in the pay of TPTB, so their testimony is suspect. Opinions? The old saying opinions are like (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s. Which academic would you like to see sliced up today? Better have evidence to back whatever you want to argue about. e) All evidence form a non-CT source is suspect (planted or disinfo etc.). Everything the gubmint does is suspect period. Either prove it or lump it. Certain characteristics surface among CTists in general and although often denied, there is an inherent anti-Semitism underlying many; HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA There you go pull the race card! an irrational view of the government as an evil willed 'hive' animal; WOW Just like the ole founding fathers, you just paid truthers a compliment! a strong belief in shills being employed to limit their freedom of speech Nope on some boards its the moderators that do that Logic is often suspended in order to follow the call of confirmation bias, thus any attempt at objectivity is superficial at best, if at all. So you copied what psychologists have said about posers and turn it around to blame what posers do on truthers. How top shelf lame man. and obcvious. Therefore, faced with such limitations, logical and well developed arguments are immaterial when responding to arguments built upon some of the inane and fantastic premises we are often presented with (Controlled demolition on 9/11; nukes at ground zero; no-planes; chem-trails; Holocaust denial; Apollo Mission hoaxes, etc.). Now you use holocaust denial, see anyone with a brain reads that trash you posted and immediately concludes this is comedy central because a blind man can see posers have nothing to back their claims.
And to a point I would agree with the above as I do see some duality to the argument. I would assume that many conspiracy theorists reached their conclusion from a starting point of an open mind, but I also know some base their conclusions out of a distrust of government or authority... rightly or wrongly so. If one assumes that all a government or authority says is a lie then that sets the stage for just about any claim being true as the dissenting view can be waved off as a government lie. The thing I find most interesting about conspiracy theories is that once in a blue moon one turn out to be absolutely correct.
Rightly. The gubmint always starts out with a preconceived outcome which is always attached to the agenda it wishes to achieve. The kennedy affair (along with several others) now days, thanks to the internet is so obvious that the gubmint has no defense. It depends on who is coming up with the theory. Hell there are posers who pretend to be truthers. Most conspiracies have enough bonafide evidence to convict but with a gubmint and court system that gives out promotions to failure instead of firing them. Its sad but true, that any time the gubmint gets involved in an investigation most of the so called facts can simply be waived as as gubmint lies.
For many CTists, this is the starting point. Mistrust and irrational views of the government as some 'hive' animal are the motivation for the confirmation bias. Address everything with this confirmation bias driving interpretation and you will have hypotheses developing with evidence selectively chosen to support it, with all conflicting evidence omitted or dismissed arbitrarily.
