Study Says Conspiracy Theorists more sane than Conventional Thinkers

Ludicrous said:

Are conspiracy theorists really the sane ones?

Click to expand...

This is really interesting. Thanks for posting it.

From the Article:

seeingeyes said:

I agree with Yarddog, though. This can apply to conspiracy theorists and anti-conspiracy theorists alike.
​

Click to expand...

Thanks.

This is not a very well done "scientific study". There is no criteria set for what the limits are for a "conventional commenter" or "Conspiracy theorist". A conspiracy theorist may be more sane than a person who totally refuses to believe that a conspiracy exists but a person who believes that conspiracies exist around every corner is not playing with a full deck.

Yarddog said:

Thanks.

This is not a very well done "scientific study". There is no criteria set for what the limits are for a "conventional commenter" or "Conspiracy theorist". A conspiracy theorist may be more sane than a person who totally refuses to believe that a conspiracy exists but a person who believes that conspiracies exist around every corner is not playing with a full deck.

Click to expand...

Eh, the conclusion that the author came to 'sells papers' (as they used to say back when papers could be sold...), so that has to be taken with a grain of salt.

What fascinates me is that we have long known that 'those other people' suffer from cognitive dissonance. This article may be an example of that (I have no idea whether the author is a 'conspiracy theorist' or not), but it also has a hint of 'I suffer from cognitive dissonance'. Which is a hard fact to face.

At any rate, it turns the tables on 'crazy', which I'm always a fan of. I love movies/games/stories where the 'crazy guy' turns out to be right. Must be my penchant for cheering on the underdog.

That most trustworthy of sources, WND.

-CryptoLutheran

It really was the CIA, John Edwards and Richard Nixon who were involved!
It turns out the conspiracy theorists are right sometimes and maybe more often than thought.

For example, in the recent Navy Yard shooting attack by Aaron Alexis that killed 12 and injured eight, theories have been abundant, especially after Alexis reportedly heard voices.
Alexis apparently believed he was being harassed through microwave mind control, an assertion that in the mind of most would render him crazy.
But Wired.com pointed to a 2008 story on a declassified Pentagon report disclosing research on using microwave voice projection technology as weaponry.
The researchers at the Pentagon were reportedly looking for nonlethal weapons.
They concluded: “Application of the microwave hearing technology could facilitate a private message transmission. It may be useful to provide a disruptive condition to a person not aware of the technology. Not only might it be disruptive to the sense of hearing, it could be psychologically devastating if one suddenly heard ‘voices within one’s head.’”
Was it likely that Alexis was a target? No. Impossible? Also, apparently, no.
Skeptics have developed conspiracy theories regarding the Sandy Hook attack, space shuttle Columbia, 9/11 and many other major news events.
There even have been studies on the theorists and their theories.
Empirical data, without a doubt, affirms that the theorists are right, sometimes.
The Daily Caller reported two years ago that Watergate theorists were correct to suspect Richard Nixon. And yes, John Edwards was running around with Rielle Hunter. And it was the CIA working on an undersea project in the 1970s near Hawaii, not Howard Hughes, who only provided cover.
Challenging beliefs
According to studies, those who subscribe to conspiracy theories are less “married” to their theories than those who accept conventional wisdom.
One study showed that people who believe strongly in something are greatly offended when proven wrong, causing emotional stress that and in some cases can threaten self-image.
Pacific Standard magazine reported on such a study. It said that “because political beliefs are connected to deeply held values, information about politics can be very threatening to your self-image.”
“Imagine coming across information that contradicts everything you’ve ever believed about the efficacy of Medicare,” the magazine report said. “If you’re wrong about such an important policy, what else might you be wrong about? And if you’re wrong about a bunch of things, you’re obviously not as smart or as good or as worthwhile a person as you previously believed. These are painful thoughts, and so we evaluate information in ways that will help us to avoid them.”
Scientific American reported that those who are insecure about their own intellect are less likely to be able to accept information that doesn’t fit neatly into their worldview. The report made the case that people might actually prefer to hear intellectually light arguments for the simple reason that they can intellectualize and articulate them better than the one giving the weak argument, and this makes them feel smarter.
Psychological experts call this cognitive dissonance. Leon Festinger first proposed the concept in 1957. He said that there is a powerful motive to be consistent in one’s thoughts. This motive, he said, can be so compelling as to be disregarding of pertinent, even thought-altering information.
Festinger theorized people experience great anxiety when new information clashes with what they believe. Calling the tension cognitive dissonance, he elaborated on a deep, almost base instinct or motivation to eliminate the dissonance and make new information fit into one’s cognitive schema.
Might this mean that the conspiracy theorists, held in such disdain by polite society, have an intellectual self-confidence and mental stability to deal with the possibility of being wrong?
Lance deHaven-Smith, a professor and scientist at Florida State University, says quite possibly so.
In his book “Conspiracy Theory in America,” he says that history proves that the campaign to label those who hypothesize about large scale national events “conspiracy theorists” is a conspiracy itself.
He investigated how America’s founders warned in the Declaration of Independence of the possibility that the political elite will use their power to defame those who criticize their motives.
Invented term
DeHaven-Smith said that the term “conspiracy theorist” was invented and made popular intentionally by the CIA in an effort to discredit those who asked questions surrounding the assassination of JFK.
Since the CIA is banned from domestic activities, if true, it is illegal, contends Kevin Barrett of Press TV.
He said “people who use the terms ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination.”
“That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal,” he continued, “and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.”
Research seems to be trending in support of some of these claims. An abstract of a recent study published by researchers at the University of Kent in the U.K. looked at trends in social media.
The study collected comments and organized them into “conspiracist” and “conventionalist” categories. They assert that “conspiracy theorists” might be more well-grounded, even more sane, than those who accept conventional wisdom on contested events.
Here’s why.
Conventional commenters in social media seemed more reactive and became more hostile and fanatically attached to their conventional beliefs.
Additionally, they were less tolerant of dissenting ideas, illustrating an inability to discuss ideas and remain civil. Further, their research indicated that those who believe in the possibility of a conspiracy are quick to admit that they are not completely sure and don’t have all the answers regarding what is, after all, a theory.
Barrett concluded the U.K. findings like this: “In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.”
Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists do not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”
Two recent studies published in American Behavioral Scientist seem to support evidence that the brains of “conspiricists” work differently than the brains of conventional thinkers.
Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph said that conventional thinkers are unable to process information that conflicts with their pre-existing belief and then integrate it into their hypotheses of possible outcomes.
University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman agrees.
He says conventional thinkers and those who reject possibilities labeled as conspiracy are simply prey to “confirmation bias,” similar to Festinger’s cognitive dissonance. They actively seek out only information that confirms their prior conventional beliefs.
The label of “conspiracy theorist,” according to Hoffman, aids in an irrational mechanism of labeling to avoid having to integrate contrary information that might cause mental or emotional tension for the weaker mind. That would explain the anger and hostility at those who present other theories that don’t integrate well.
Psychology professors aren’t alone in their theory about theories.
Communication professors at Boise State University presented a peer-reviewed piece called “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion.”
They said that simply by calling someone a conspiracy theorist, it doesn’t matter whether you have “actually claimed … a conspiracy exists, or whether you have simply raised an issue” that someone would rather not discuss at all. By labeling people with ideas different from convention, they “strategically exclude” dissent and new ideas from public consumption.
Clinical psychologist Dr. Dathan Paterno finds irony in such conspiracy research.
“Ultimately, these data raise more questions and only serve to breed cynicism – the primary ingredient of conspiracy theory. In the end, it seems that the conspiracy of conspiracy theories is really a conspiracy against the conspirators … or perhaps a conspiracy by those who would conspire against conspirators.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/are-conspiracy-theorists-really-the-sane-ones/#qWSkmAIuyGJ5CP14.99

Hi guys,

I copy and pasted the entire article so that we would all be able to check the 'facts'.

Here's the title that ludicrous started this thread with:

Study Says Conspiracy Theorists more sane than Conventional Thinkers

Now, I read the entire article and didn't find that to be at all what this study shows.

Here's the articles opening premise:

It turns out the conspiracy theorists are right sometimes and maybe more often than thought.

What does this really say? Well, it says that conspiracy theorists are right sometimes. It doesn't give any value to how many times. In keeping with this position a theory that many might understand as a 'conspiracy theory' might be proven true two times out of 100 times or it could be 99 times out of 100 times. It allows that 'maybe' they are right more often than we might think. Friends, that is not in any way a definite claim. 'Maybe' doesn't prove anything. Never does the article make any such claim that 'conspiracy theorists' are 'more sane' than conventional thinkers.

It does make the point that conspiracy theorists, in one study, don't seem to be as 'married' to their theories as conventional thinkers. Now, I'm going to be honest here and tell you that I don't really know what that means. If it means that they aren't as adamant about their position as conventional thinkers, then I'd challenge them to read some of the posts on this site. LOL!

But it seems that this is often how the unwise think. They accept a set of 'possibilities' and 'maybes' as facts and then go on their merry way trying to tell others that these things are proven truths. Just as happened in titling this thread.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

ViaCrucis said:

That most trustworthy of sources, WND.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Here's a link to the Pacific Standard article mentioned:Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

A 2006 study led by Geoff Cohen, for example, found that when pro-choice people had their partisan identities made salient, affirmation made them more likely to compromise and make concessions on abortion restrictions. Similarly, a study by Joshua Correll found that affirmation led people to process threatening political arguments in a less biased way. More recently, research by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler (PDF) found that self-affirmation made people who supported withdrawing from Iraq more likely to agree that the Iraq troop surge of 2007 saved lives, and made strong Republicans more likely to agree that climate change is real. The takeaway from all three studies is that information is more likely to have the desired effect if, on net, it doesn't lower a person's self-worth.

Click to expand...

(Bold mine.)

This rings true to me.

To continue:

Here are some of the conspiracy theories that I have come across:

It was not airplanes that took down the WTC but either (take your pick) U.S. missiles or some electro magnetic destructive device.

Believe or don't believe?

The Sandy Hook school massacre was an act of our own government.

Believe or don't believe?

The Boston Marathon bombing was a well planned and controlled U.S. government event.

Believe or don't believe?

Similarly the destruction of the Alfred Murrah building in Oklahoma was a U.S. government job.

Believe or don't believe?

We have never actually landed on the moon.

Believe or don't believe.

In fact our entire space program is a hoax.

Believe or don't believe.

If anyone is really interested in checking out the theories that swirl within our culture that are considered 'conspiracy' theories here are some good places to check:

Spooks or Spooked? 10 Frightening Conspiracy Theories | WebUrbanist

List of conspiracy theories - RationalWiki

List of conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Worst 100 Nutty Conspiracy Theories of All Time - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
This one can be a bit humorous, but also a lot scary.

Top 10 Conspiracy Theories : Investigation Discovery

These are just a few to peruse and I'm sorry, but if the claim of the title of this thread is even remotely true, I'm preferring to be less sane. Just thought this might add some brevity to the less sane of us around here.

God bless you all
In Christ, Ted

duplicate deleted. It must have been a conspiracy!!!!!LOL

miamited said:

What does this really say? Well, it says that conspiracy theorists are right sometimes. It doesn't give any value to how many times. In keeping with this position a theory that many might understand as a 'conspiracy theory' might be proven true two times out of 100 times or it could be 99 times out of 100 times. It allows that 'maybe' they are right more often than we might think. Friends, that is not in any way a definite claim. 'Maybe' doesn't prove anything. Never does the article make any such claim that 'conspiracy theorists' are 'more sane' than conventional thinkers.

Click to expand...

Even a blind squirrel is right twice a day! (Or something like that. )

miamited said:

Now, I read the entire article and didn't find that to be at all what this study shows.

Click to expand...

That is what I surmised and reported in my 1st post. (#10)

God Bless,
YD

seeingeyes said:

Even a blind squirrel is right twice a day! (Or something like that. )

Click to expand...

Hi SE,

I think the colloquialism (?) is 'broken clock'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

ViaCrucis said:

That most trustworthy of sources, WND.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

You know, I don't know much about WND, but I have noticed that those who are stuck in conventional thinking always criticize it.

seeingeyes said:

Even a blind squirrel is right twice a day! (Or something like that. )

Click to expand...

Wow, you guys are trying so hard to prove the article wrong or that it says what you want it to say, must affect your self esteem.

Psalm 91 said:

Wow, you guys are trying so hard to prove the article wrong or that it says what you want it to say, must affect your self esteem.

Click to expand...

Read my posts. Where did I try to prove the article wrong?

miamited said:

Hi SE,

I think the colloquialism (?) is 'broken clock'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Click to expand...

It's a blend between 'a broken clock is right twice a day' and 'even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while'.

Just having some fun.

[URL="http://biblia.com/books/NIV/Psalm 91" said:

Psalm 91[/URL];64271903]You know, I don't know much about WND, but I have noticed that those who are stuck in conventional thinking always criticize it.

Click to expand...

Because WND has a reputation--that it has rightfully earned--for lying. The most clear example that I can recall is this WND article here:

Obama’s ring: ‘There is no god but Allah’

-CryptoLutheran

This is a sad and ironic thread. This article does nothing but tout how delusional people are and how easily manipulated CTs are. Your minds aren't "superior" they aren't "free" or "outside of the box". They are captivated and infatuated by mindless theories and doctrines, they are in the box and locked away from any sound thought or reasoning words. It is to the point that you're so blind that it is impossible to reach you. Because any logical thought or objection, CTs will either become hostile or "laugh about how stupid everyone else is" effectually becoming hypocrites. It is at times both disgusting and sad. It may very well be that CTs are the deluded people the bible speaks of, or perhaps it is something more medical in nature.

If it is medical, then there is at least some hope. If it is delusion, then by all my experience and observation my conclusion is always the same. You cannot be reached.

seeingeyes said:

What fascinates me is that we have long known that 'those other people' suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Click to expand...

I can see how cognitive dissonance would explain the adverse reaction from the extreme fringe of both factions. It's kinda of like liberalism and conservatism. The further towards the fringes they get the more similar are their reactions to those who disagree.

seeingeyes said:

This article may be an example of that (I have no idea whether the author is a 'conspiracy theorist' or not), but it also has a hint of 'I suffer from cognitive dissonance'. Which is a hard fact to face.

Click to expand...

I don't know if she would qualify as a conspiracy theorist but she is a ultra conservative Tea Partyer. (They did a skit with her on the Daily Show last week. Jason Jones made her look silly.) I haven't seen her TV show but it most likely is pretty generic in their claims about Democrats and Obama.
Home | #DrGina Show#DrGina Show

ViaCrucis said:

Because WND has a reputation--that it has rightfully earned--for lying. The most clear example that I can recall is this WND article here:

Obama’s ring: ‘There is no god but Allah’

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

And so this is a lie, how?

God's Fighter said:

This is a sad and ironic thread. This article does nothing but tout how delusional people are and how easily manipulated CTs are. Your minds aren't "superior" they aren't "free" or "outside of the box". They are captivated and infatuated by mindless theories and doctrines, they are in the box and locked away from any sound thought or reasoning words. It is to the point that you're so blind that it is impossible to reach you. Because any logical thought or objection, CTs will either become hostile or "laugh about how stupid everyone else is" effectually becoming hypocrites. It is at times both disgusting and sad. It may very well be that CTs are the deluded people the bible speaks of, or perhaps it is something more medical in nature.

If it is medical, then there is at least some hope. If it is delusion, then by all my experience and observation my conclusion is always the same. You cannot be reached.

Click to expand...

Well, if you're so right and we're so "delusional", prove it.