Conspiracy Theories a Sign of Sane Thinking Study Shows

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Conspiracy Theories a Sign of Sane Thinking Study Shows
Added by Kristi Cereska on November 5, 2014.


Conspiracy theories cannot be countered as rhetoric or nonsense anymore, according to a new study which shows that looking at things from all sides is a sign of sanity. When it comes to the psychology of those that can accept or reject theories that may not be popular, it seems they are a step above those that will reject any theory except their own outright. Those who believe they are simply seeking the truth are sometimes labeled in today’s society as a tinfoil hat-wearing nutso.

The study, conducted on a news site, and a poll of those that commented was the basis for the study, which had as a topic, 9/11. There were over 2,000 comments and over 1,400 of them were labeled as being conspiracies, while just over 700 were labeled conventionalist. What this shows is that many more people are looking at issues critically and in-depth instead of just outright disputing them. It also showed that although the conspiracy theories group would argue against other’s views, they used less negative comments and strictly focused on the issue and what happened. The conventional people would argue, trying to push their own views on others in a far more hostile and argumentative manner.

People today will not accept that their views could be considered conspiracy theories because of the negative connotations associated with that term. Many believe that the phrase goes back to the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the document that ultimately came out, which directed media on how to cover the story and how to handle those that did not believe what the government’s official stance was. This document, the CIA Instructions to Media Assets, was supposed to be destroyed when it was no longer needed, but a copy resides in the Real History Archives. Among other things, the document stated how to handle critics and how to deflect questions from those critics.

This document goes on to use the term conspiracy, and that those disputing the governments truths were weak-minded, and that these people were using “irresponsible speculation” and that they focused on things that were impossible to dispute. This document even speaks directly of the assassination stating that conspiracy theories as large as some of the critics were talking about would be impossible to pull off.

The new study shows that the more one rejects ideas outright, the more aggressive they are in their views. They do not want to see beyond their own beliefs, or expand their thinking. Those that are labeled as conspiracy theorists are those that hope to open minds up to other possibilities, without forcing their beliefs on others. Pushing the barriers of long-held belief systems is not a bad thing; it is a way to open the mind, expand perceptions and seek the truth.

Many do not believe it wrong to look beyond the printed word and seek the truth. Many others do not want the pot stirred, and want to keep the long-held belief systems in their views of the government, media and the world. Independent studies will not change those that will argue with anyone that does not hold the same beliefs, but it may just take the stigma out of reading and discussing all those conspiracy theories.

By Kristi Cereska

Sources:
The Progressive Mind
Natural News
NCBI

Thanks to Jenna Orkin for directing me to this link.

[norton ash]

Please, take this crazy shit somewhere else, OK? I'm so sick of these crackpot theories. You disrespect all those who died that day, not to mention the sacrifices of our armed services. Get out of your mom's basement and try reality for a change.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

[stillrobertpaulsen]

HA! From the NCBI link above:

"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. These tendencies in persuasive communication can be understood as a reflection of an underlying conspiracist worldview in which the details of individual conspiracy theories are less important than a generalized rejection of official explanations."

[seemslikeadream]

[82_28]

Even people who made up their own minds have to use "air-quotes" when speaking amongst themselves. Because we "get it". We're not assholes. Everybody knows it was the "fabled" and yet fictional "inside-job". It's only the media that stays fast with the "official account". Why? I do not know.

I think I do know, but I really don't know why I know. Hence the name of this dump whose leader has forsaken his flock.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Even people who made up their own minds have to use "air-quotes" when speaking amongst themselves. Because we "get it". We're not assholes. Everybody knows it was the "fabled" and yet fictional "inside-job". It's only the media that stays fast with the "official account". Why? I do not know.

I think I do know, but I really don't know why I know. Hence the name of this dump whose leader has forsaken his flock.

This is the cross we have to bear.

[Twyla LaSarc]

I became aware of 'conspiracy thinking' pretty early, but I got a good dose of it in the 90's when a friend of mine started dragging home everything from Phikal to illuminati theory on her yearly vacation from dead tour. It was pre internet and she brought books and ideas home to share...I listened, because I do, but I still thought myself 'reasonable' (there is no escaping the air quote...).

The weird thing was, fool I, there was a hell of a lot of it was actually pretty dead on in 20 years retrospect. If that is conspiracy theory, then what is truth?

[stillrobertpaulsen]

I became aware of 'conspiracy thinking' pretty early, but I got a good dose of it in the 90's when a friend of mine started dragging home everything from Phikal to illuminati theory on her yearly vacation from dead tour. It was pre internet and she brought books and ideas home to share...I listened, because I do, but I still thought myself 'reasonable' (there is no escaping the air quote...).

The weird thing was, fool I, there was a hell of a lot of it was actually pretty dead on in 20 years retrospect. If that is conspiracy theory, then what is truth?

You know what first made me "conspiracy aware"? (There we go again!) It was finding out about the results of HSCA. I was probably 9 or 10 years old at the time and it was a real light bulb moment - ('Oswald had help? Who could that be?') so I kept digging.

My Grandma was a sympathetic ear. She didn't buy the Warren Report either. She also was the one who got me into Illuminati sometime around 1987-88.

[Luther Blissett]

It's only the media that stays fast with the "official account".

This hasn't been my experience with my immediate peer group. It's strange but it seems to have become terribly unpunk to concern oneself with questions.

I hear a lot that it's disrespectful to the victims and families of 9/11 to ask questions. And of course we know the counter to this but I can see what they mean if I'm in a certain mood.

[Lord Balto]

Please, take this crazy shit somewhere else, OK? I'm so sick of these crackpot theories. You disrespect all those who died that day, not to mention the sacrifices of our armed services. Get out of your mom's basement and try reality for a change.

Sounds to me like you are the one who has a problem with reality. Do you also believe in the tooth fairy? As for "sacrifices," they wouldn't have had to make them if Cheney hadn't had a hard-on for Saddam's oil reserves, and faked an attack to justify an invasion. And I, for one, am deathly tired of folks whose cognitive dissonance prevents them from thinking clearly. But then, that's what the study is all about, isn't it?

And why don't you take your crazy shit somewhere else. This entire forum is about thinking outside the box. It's not about swallowing every lie, distortion, and deception propagated by a bunch of power hungry psychopaths in Washington and Ottawa.

[coffin_dodger]

^^ a 'failed to spot the sarcasm' addition to the smilies would be good at this point.

[Searcher08]

^^ a 'failed to spot the sarcasm' addition to the smilies would be good at this point.

Reminder for Lord Balto
Text in green at RI denotes sarcasm and often of a biting variety. For example
We really need a dozen a day libcom anti-fascist threads in General Discussion

HTH

@CD - that is a great idea. I would like to have additional ones for

1) You have not answered the question
2) You, Sir / Madam, are engaging in verbal onanism ( to use the Savant's memorable phrase)
3) WTF do you want me to DO with this post?

[seemslikeadream]

Please, take this crazy shit somewhere else, OK? I'm so sick of these crackpot theories. You disrespect all those who died that day, not to mention the sacrifices of our armed services. Get out of your mom's basement and try reality for a change.

Sounds to me like you are the one who has a problem with reality. Do you also believe in the tooth fairy? As for "sacrifices," they wouldn't have had to make them if Cheney hadn't had a hard-on for Saddam's oil reserves, and faked an attack to justify an invasion. And I, for one, am deathly tired of folks whose cognitive dissonance prevents them from thinking clearly. But then, that's what the study is all about, isn't it?

And why don't you take your crazy shit somewhere else. This entire forum is about thinking outside the box. It's not about swallowing every lie, distortion, and deception propagated by a bunch of power hungry psychopaths in Washington and Ottawa.

again a bit to fast on the uptake criticism there my Lord...it may behoove you to slow your roll on the disparaging..think about not being so overly chidey here ....you're beginning to sound like a grumpy old man...it maybe in fact you are not the smartest Lord in the castle

in my limited time reading here I've caught you doing this 5 times in the last few days

[Lord Balto]

Point taken. Any other arcane color coding I should be aware of?

And just for the record, what was the point of this irony? I do not see where it added anything to the discussion. We certainly do not need to be reminded that there are folks out there who think that mom's apple pie is identified with patriotism in the constitution.

And furthermore, I do not see how calling me out on a reply to a vacuous posting is not itself a huge waste of time. I get the feeling it was simply a way of pointing out that I am not part of the in-group, and a way of calling me stupid without making it all too obvious. I assure you that my intelligence is far from lacking on any scientifically determined objective scale. Do I detect a note of "You can't be too bright because you don't agree with me"?