[Closed] conspiracy theorists - the facts (time for your meds sheeple)

It's just the system trying to lull you into a false sense of security.

Ah "Natural News".

That'll be the same site that published an article about [url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/homeopathy-madness ]creating an Ebola vaccine with Homeopathy[/url] by simply taking blood from Ebola victims, mixing it with water and hitting it against a book. 😯

[img] [/img]

It's a site called natural news. That should tell you some thing.
They concluded that conspiricists are more likely to post about 911 than others and those that post against them ate more likely to be angry

To me it says that most people can't be arsed arguing with them anymore and go and do something else instead

See also almost any thread on any subject anywhere once it goes beyond a few pages

"conspiracy theorists" appear to be more sane than people who accept official versions of controversial and contested events.

[b]The research showed that people who favored the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile'[/b]

So sane intelligent people get cross dealing with idiotic irrational conspiracists - who knew?

Also, it seems that those who do not believe in the conspiracies were not just hostile but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. The researchers said that, according to the anti-conspiracy holders, their own theory of 9/11 -- one which says 19 Muslims, none of whom could fly commercial airliners with any proficiency, pulled off an amazing surprise attack under the direction of a man on dialysis (Osama bin Laden) who was living in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan -- is unwaveringly true.

Meanwhile, "conspiracists," on the hand, did not have to pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11. "For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account," the researchers said.

Note the language they use in this report here - amusing

As reported by Veterans Today:

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.

The official account - note they say official to mean government fed lies - is many things but it is neither fringe nor a theory.
Its not worthy of further discussion nor even an ignoble prize

Conspiracist supporter does research to support their own view masquerading as science

FWIW the actuall publication concluded

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.

In full

In sum, our results are in agreement with predictions derived from prior research. Consistent with much of the existing literature on individual differences associated with conspiracy belief, comments that supported 9/11 conspiracy theories were more likely to express mistrust and to refer to other conspiracy theories favorably. Conspiracists were less overtly hostile than their conventionalist counterparts, and did not appreciate being called conspiracy theorists. Perhaps most importantly, however, the finding that conspiracists spend more time arguing against official explanations than for alternative explanations supports the idea that the conspiracy worldview is based more on disbelief than on positive belief. The coherence of the conspiracist belief system is driven by higher-order considerations such as a disbelief in official narratives, rather than positive beliefs in particular alternative narratives. This result also agrees with previous informal observations by conventionalist commentators, who devote a great deal of time to examining and debunking conspiracy theories.

My conclusion from this study is that the rationalist are driven to anger and hostility by the ability of conspiracy theorists to defy logic, ignore real evidence and constantly confirm their own bias. Fair enough. I daily have to suppress the desire to handbag a chemtrailer, I've resorted to putting bromide in his tea.

You could of course always read the research article (which isn't a "new study" at all, published over a year ago), which doesn't really support the allegations in the article at all, let alone the headline.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3703523/
/p>

The same researchers also produced an earlier paper, which showed that conspiracy theorists will generally believe several contradictory conspiracy theories - I'm not sure that's a very good definition of sanity.
http://www.academia.edu/1207098/Dead_and_alive_Beliefs_in_contradictory_conspiracy_theories

I've resorted to putting bromide in his tea.

No need - "They" already put it in drinking water and seed rainclouds with it.

heh!

Q.E.D 😆

You could of course always read the research article

Flounces 😉

It's a good gag isn't it?

Present ludicrous self-contradictory argument full of logical flaws.

If anyone tries to contradict it then they are being "hostile" conventionalists.

Pretty much the same approach as dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as "sheeple" or "working for the man".

Self-delusion supporting self-delusion.

It's nutters all the way down... 😆

My conclusion from this study is that the rationalist are driven to anger and hostility by the ability of conspiracy theorists to defy logic

turning that on its head though - the appeal of conspiracy-theory-thinking is that you take all the worst things that have or can happen in life and theorise that someone is behind them all plotting and planning them as part of some grand scheme. Thats a very comfortable thought as you can imagine that it has direction, has planning and ultimately could be stopped. A more uncomfortable thought is that theres no design - that theres no joined up thinking, no sinister network, no way to engage with or pre-empt all these things. That the whole variety of selfish and aggressive actions taken by individuals, corporations and governments happen as part of a big, jumbled, un-designed mess and that any attempt to deal with it can only have countless unintended consequences which would only be more jumbled and intangible than things already are.

Of course conspiracy theorists are more relaxed

Q.E.D ? Is it coming back on tv?, cool I loved that programme and tomorrows world...

the appeal of conspiracy-theory-thinking is that you take all the worst things that have or can happen in life and theorise that someone is behind them all plotting and planning them as part of some grand scheme. Thats a very comfortable thought as you can imagine that it has direction, has planning and ultimately could be stopped. A more uncomfortable thought is that theres no design

So basically it's the same motivation as religion 😉

under the direction of a man on dialysis (Osama bin Laden) who was living in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan

No need - "They" already put it in drinking water and seed rainclouds with it.

That was my attempt at female humour/irony, I am saddened that nobody got it..

aracer - Member

The same researchers also produced an earlier paper, which showed that conspiracy theorists will generally believe several contradictory conspiracy theories - I'm not sure that's a very good definition of sanity.

I love this tbh. Common to a lot of internet arguments to be fair.

Jivehoney - I take it all back. You are right. I am sorry.

I enjoyed the use of the word "scientific" in that headline. It's funny how you can smell idiocy in print, isn't it?

Jivehoney - I take it all back. You are right. I am sorry.

No worries, all is well with the cosmos 😉

You'd be pretty silly to believe the government though eh?

Yes , literally nothing they say at all on anything is true so never ever believe them - that is the sensible approach , yeah ? 😉

PS doctors work for the govt so if they say you are sane dont fall for their jedi mind tricks.

You'd be pretty silly to believe the government though eh?

Unquestioningly accepting any information is generally a bad thing.

But given the choice of:

a) [i]"The Government"[/i] - who produce information that may be scrutinised by the civil service, opposition parties, independent public bodies, academics, the media, other governments, and the public at large.

versus

b) [i]"Some bloke on the internet"[/i] who produces information that is contradicted by his own "evidence" and is peer-reviewed by no one.

Then I'd argue that believing b) was a far sillier choice 😀

b) "Some bloke on the internet" who produces information that is contradicted by his own "evidence" and is peer-reviewed by no one.

Then I'd argue that believing b) was a far sillier choice

I don't believe you

So basically it's the same motivation as religion

"Some bloke on the internet" who produces information that is contradicted by his own "evidence" and is peer-reviewed by no one.

One blokes conspiracy theory is another mans coincidence theory !

And that's a FACT 😉

His wife is a dr and he works in a govt funded role
See through his lies

Brilliant. Gotta love (un)naturalnews!

Poe-tastic

If I need to cheer myself up I go to the Dr(?) Judy Wood site, works every time.

" 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."

This is most telling - the conspriacists just can't handle the truth!

dbcooper - Member
My conclusion from this study is that the rationalist are driven to anger and hostility by the ability of conspiracy theorists to defy logic, ignore real evidence and constantly confirm their own bias. Fair enough. I daily have to suppress the desire to handbag a chemtrailer, I've resorted to putting bromide in his tea.

That article could be a parody.

The polarising nature of a lot of these arguments is particularly depressing. There's faith on both sides.

And you really don't have to pick a side. That really is faith-based craziness.

Keep your mind open and enquiring, just because you think the moon landing wasn't staged on a film set doesn't mean you shouldn't wonder whose interests are being served by the delays in the publication of the Chilcot enquiry.

I find the polarising nature particularly depressing, there always seems to be a hardcore few on each side of the arguments who have very rigid views indeed..

It's a shame to witness seemingly intelligent people completely unable to grasp that very simplest tenet of wisdom that Socrates laid out so long ago..

Keep your mind open and enquiring, just because you think the moon landing wasn't staged on a film set doesn't mean you shouldn't wonder whose interests are being served by the delays in the publication of the Chilcot enquiry.

Good stuff Ned, for what it's worth, I'm not convinced by chemtrails or the faked moon landing, but given the vast influence of the arms lobby and the mysterious offshore funds of several prominent figures, you have to wonder just why all these wars are being started and who is behind the situations used to gain public support with the problem>reaction>solution model

I'm not convinced by chemtrails

From the book “Flight To Arras” by Antoine de Saint Exupery, written in 1942 about a military mission in 1940:
_______________________
“Are the anti-aircraft firing, Dutertre?”
“I believe they are firing, Captain.”

Dutertre cannot tell. The bursts are too distant and the smoke is blended in with the ground. They cannot hope to bring us down by such vague firing. At thirty three thousand feet we are virtually invulnerable. They are firing in order to gauge our position, and probably also to guide the fighter groups towards us. A fighter group diluted in the sky like invisible dust.

The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitude trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside.

The fighters are guided towards us by their radio, by the bursts on the ground, and by the ostentatious luxury of our white scarf. Nevertheless we swim in an emptiness almost interplanetary. Everything around us and within us is total immobility.”

Chemtrailers reduce me almost to apoplectic, teeth-grinding rage! I have found that posting photos of WW2 Bombers and fighters leaving a sky full of contrails, and quoting Antoine de Saint Exupery, written in 1942 about a military mission in 1940, describing leaving trails like a silk scarf seems to shut them up.
Difficult to claim they're a conspiracy using jets when piston-engined fighters were doing the same thing while dogfighting seventy years ago!

I think you need a nice cup of camomile and an early night lad !

I think you need a nice cup of camomile and an early night lad !

and maybe some strong pharmaceutical sedatives too?

jivehoneyjive - Member

......you have to wonder just why all these wars are being started

Human nature.

TBH, I really liked your early stuff, it had a mad, swivel eyed quality that really appealed, but when you started banging on about the Illuminati and David Icke I realized you were as mad a spoon after all.

It's Surrounded By Zoofighters all over again - you ruined a very promising trolling career by pushing too far, too soon.

🙂

TBH, I really liked your early stuff, it had a mad, swivel eyed quality that really appealed, but when you started banging on about the Illuminati and David Icke I realized you were as mad a spoon after all.

Oh, I'm wholly certifiable, make no mistake about that, which can sometimes work to my advantage 😉

Can't recall going on about Illuminati or David Icke in any great detail... there is some interesting avenues which make you wonder, but c'mon, as if there could be such vastly powerful folk lurking amongst us? 8)

The Matrix is a good film though.

Which pill would you take given the choice?

Free pills?
Both, obviously.
🙂

[img] [/img]

double post

The Matrix is a good film though.