Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists

[ToR original]

How is that 'keeping an open mind'?

Keeping an open mind as in NOT blindly believing everything that is presented to one by 'whomever'.

Someone who believes everything they are told would be by definition insane. They would believe for instance that Trump is both a great president and a terrible president simultaneously.

People pick and choose what of they are told to believe ... much like religious believers ... they choose a side and 'believe'. Hence brain washed ... and yes insane ..whichever side they 'believe'.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You can "pick and choose" with nothing to base your choices on or you can make informed decisions based on inquiry and investigation.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Actual Research Into The Psychology Of Conspiracy Theorists
Nothing really surprising, basically, the Barmaid in the above cartoon pretty much sums it up.
One detail of note: Apparently, Bullshit Receptivity is an actual technical term, and measures people's reception to statements typical of the Deepak Chopra random quote generator.

 

[FatFreddy]

Here's a link to a post I made about conspiracy theorists.

(post #43)
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...ere-probably-faked.163437/page-3#post-3644579

 

[paddoboy]

Here's a link to a post I made about conspiracy theorists.

(post #43)
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...ere-probably-faked.163437/page-3#post-3644579

Here's a link to a reputable, professional article about nutty conspiracy theorists.....
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180925075108.htm

extracts:
Conspiracy theories have been cooked up throughout history, but they are increasingly visible lately, likely due in part to the president of the United States routinely embracing or creating them.
"These people tend to be more suspicious, untrusting, eccentric, needing to feel special, with a tendency to regard the world as an inherently dangerous place," Hart said. "They are also more likely to detect meaningful patterns where they might not exist. People who are reluctant to believe in conspiracy theories tend to have the opposite qualities."
Some people are also habitual conspiracists who entertain a variety of generic theories. For example, they believe that world politics are controlled by a cabal instead of governments or that scientists systematically deceive the public. This indicates that personality or other individual differences might be at play.

"Our results clearly showed that the strongest predictor of conspiracy belief was a constellation of personality characteristics collectively referred to as 'schizotypy,' Hart said.

The trait borrows its name from schizophrenia, but it does not imply a clinical diagnosis. Hart's study also showed that conspiracists had distinct cognitive tendencies: they were more likely than nonbelievers to judge nonsensical statements as profound (a tendency known as "BS receptivity").

So what does this all mean?

"First, it helps to realize that conspiracy theories differ from other worldviews in that they are fundamentally gloomy," Hart said. "This sets them apart from the typically uplifting messages conveyed by, say, religious and spiritual beliefs. At first blush this is a conundrum. However, if you are the type of person who looks out at the world and sees a chaotic, malevolent landscape full of senseless injustice and suffering, then perhaps there is a modicum of comfort to be found in the notion that there is someone, or some small group of people, responsible for it all. If 'there's something going on,' then at least there is something that could be done about it."

more at link.....

 

[Ethernos D Grace]

Why do people believe in conspiracy theories? And why, if you believe in one conspiracy theories, are you more likely to believe in other such theories?

Here's an interesting article on that topic:

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...le_who_claim_to_know_the_truth_about_jfk.html

Here's my quick summary of some of the points made. The term "believers" below means "people who believe in one or more conspiracy theories".

• Believers aren't really skeptics. They are selective doubters. They favour a particular worldview, which they uncritically defend.
• Believers tend to think that elites are omnipotent - e.g. the government can, in utter secrecy, influence the flow of information to such an extent that it can "cover up" massive conspiracies of misinformation such as the existence of UFOs, the non-reality of climate change, that the US government brought down the World Trade Center, or the danger of vaccines to children.
• Believers tend to be low in trust of other people. This makes them more likely to believe that other people are colluding against them.
• Believers tend to be political cynics. That is, they are more inclined to think that politicians are liars, and that politics is a process for elites that is removed from the "common man".
  
• Believers tend to believe that most people can be "bought off" so as to act dishonestly or to support a conspiracy. This is tied to their general lack of trust, especially in "the establishment".
• Believers tend to think that random occurrences are actually intended by somebody.
• Believes tend to ignore complex causes, instead putting things down to overarching control by the omnipotent elites. Given the choice between a complex web of causes and a seemingly-simple explanation involving a conspiracy of powerful elites, believers will opt for the conspiracy theory most of the time.
  
• Believers tend to think that people behave in certain ways because they have certain objectives (aligned with the conspiracy, typically), and/or personality traits (untrustworthiness, seeking to enrich or empower themselves). Believers downplay the importance of situational factors and chance in how people act.
• Believers tend to be imaginative and prone to fantasising.
• If you believe that the world is full of malice and planning instead of circumstance and coincidence, you are more likely to buy into belief in a conspiracy theory. And once you believe in one, you're far more likely to believe in others.
• Believers are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories that actually contradict one another than to accept a straightforward explanation. For example, the more you believe that Princess Diana faked her own death, you more likely you are believe that, if she didn't fake her own death, then she was probably murdered.
• A study showed that "The strongest predictor of belief in an entirely fictitious conspiracy theory was belief in other real-world conspiracy theories."
• Believers feel alienated from mainstream society. They don't trust the government or the media.
• Believers concentrate on finding "holes" in official explanations. However, they do not look for holes in the "alternative" (conspiracy theory) explanations, tending instead to accept them at face value.
• Conspiracy believers are the ultimate motivated skeptics. Their curse is that they apply this selective scrutiny not to the left or right, but to the mainstream. They tell themselves that they’re the ones who see the lies, and the rest of us are sheep. But believing that everybody’s lying is just another kind of gullibility.

Does this sound like you, or anybody you know?

I believe in some like holcaust, kennedy assasination, assasination of gandhi,not in ufos,cia human experiments and i don't remember other examples. Could u please analyse my views?is it wrong to believe in conspiracies?( no sarcasm implied, honest curiosity).

 

[wegs]

I was talking about conspiracy theories with a friend recently, and we both thought that not all conspiracy theories are way off base. Some have some merit, and when they’re dismissed too quickly, I can’t help but think that the dismissers may find them to have some truth that they’re concerned will catch on. Hmm.

 

[DaveC426913]

I believe in some like holcaust, kennedy assasination, assasination of gandhi,not in ufos,cia human experiments and i don't remember other examples. Could u please analyse my views?is it wrong to believe in conspiracies?( no sarcasm implied, honest curiosity).

These are not conspiracy theories. These are facts.

The difference is in the preponderance of evidence.

 

[FatFreddy]

When these theories are discussed on forums, a lot of posters who are against them are paid sophists* who probably work for public-relations firms hired by the government to try to control the damage.

These public-relations agencies try to associate crazy theories with the ones that aren't theories any more but are now facts do to the preponderance of evidence to try to discredit them.

provocateurs,shills and disinfo agents

A good example is the recent increase in the number of people who say the earth is flat. I doubt any of those people who say that actually believe it. I would bet they're actors who work for the PR firms.

The flat earth-believers in this video are probably actors.

Flat Earthers vs Scientists: Can We Trust Science?

Most people who disregard evidence that a theory has now become a fact are in denial. Here's an example.

Scientific View - Why you can't believe the truth about 9/11 - Because your scared of the Truth

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence...sychology/278-part-1-preface-and-introduction


On some forums the discussions of some or all of these facts are prohibited and posters get banned for simply trying to discuss them.



*
https://www.clubconspiracy.com/counter-intellegience-tricks-and-techniques-t4702.html

 

[paddoboy]

When these theories are discussed on forums, a lot of posters who are against them are paid sophists*

Not getting the attention you crave for Freddy, with your nonsensical crap being rightly shut down?
The over riding truth is that generally conspiracy theorists are totally fucking nuts. If the cap fits, wear it.

 

[James R]

When these theories are discussed on forums, a lot of posters who are against them are paid sophists* who probably work for public-relations firms hired by the government to try to control the damage.

These public-relations agencies try to associate crazy theories with the ones that aren't theories any more but are now facts do to the preponderance of evidence to try to discredit them.

How many posters on this forum - sciforums - do you think are probably "paid sophists" working for public-relations firms hired by the government etc., FatFreddy?

A good example is the recent increase in the number of people who say the earth is flat. I doubt any of those people who say that actually believe it. I would bet they're actors who work for the PR firms.

The flat earth-believers in this video are probably actors.

I find it fascinating that you think that people who believe in conspiracy theories other than the ones that you, personally, believe in must all be telling lies or else be "paid shills" or whatever you want to call them. At the same time, it never occurs to you that any of your co-conspiracy theory mates - like the ones who say they believe in the moon hoax conspiracy theory, for instance - might be anything less than honest, upstanding citizens out to uncover the evils the government and those in its employ.

I suppose it's not a nice thought for you to imagine that the people who believe in other nonsensical conspiracy theories (e.g. the flat earth) without evidence are equivalent to you believing in the moon hoax, also without any reliable evidence for it.

It's always the other guy who is the crazy conspiracist or the evil plotter, I guess. :shrug: The psychology of it all remains a subject of fascination to me.

Have you tried assessing yourself with reference to the criteria I posted in my opening post? How many of those traits would you say fairly describe you, FatFreddy? I'm really interested to know.

 

[Ethernos D Grace]

These are not conspiracy theories. These are facts.

The difference is in the preponderance of evidence.

Then what do you think about current status of china are there evidence or simply the news are paid to do so?

 

[billvon]

When these theories are discussed on forums, a lot of posters who are against them are paid sophists* who probably work for public-relations firms hired by the government to try to control the damage.

Excellent! Please let me know who will be sending me a paycheck! I had no idea posting facts online could be lucrative.

A good example is the recent increase in the number of people who say the earth is flat. I doubt any of those people who say that actually believe it. I would bet they're actors who work for the PR firms.

I find it hilarious that you espouse most any kooky conspiracy theory, but when OTHER people propose kooky conspiracy theories, they must be paid actors.

It also means that you believe that Mad Mike Hughes, the guy who lived in an RV and built rockets out of old water heaters, was a paid actor. A limo driver who lives in an RV and builds rockets out of water tanks - and then dies when they fail - is a paid actor? Now that's funny.

BTW Mike's description in a Wired article reminds me of you:
"To be sure, Mike was a conspiracy theorist par excellence. He was convinced that shadowy international cabals were running the world. He thought the lunar landing had been a hoax. At the time of his death, he was under indictment for extortion, thanks to a scheme based on his theory that spelling a person’s name entirely in capital letters entitled someone else to their entire estate (or something like that). "

On some forums the discussions of some or all of these facts are prohibited and posters get banned for simply trying to discuss them.

Facts are just fine here. Trolling isn't.

 

[FatFreddy]

Facts are just fine here. Trolling isn't.

Censorship is only necessary when a lie is being defended as the truth finally prevails when everyone can speak freely.

It also means that you believe that Mad Mike Hughes, the guy who lived in an RV and built rockets out of old water heaters, was a paid actor. A limo driver who lives in an RV and builds rockets out of water tanks - and then dies when they fail - is a paid actor? Now that's funny.

The guy sounds like a kook to me but most kooks know that two plus two equals four so a lot of kooks who've seen the proof* probably know the Apollo moon missions were faked.

How many posters on this forum - sciforums - do you think are probably "paid sophists" working for public-relations firms hired by the government etc., FatFreddy?

They all fit the profile of paid sophists.

https://www.clubconspiracy.com/counter-intellegience-tricks-and-techniques-t4702.html
(excerpts)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and non-acceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the "image" and are hot and cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to "act their role in type" as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They may work in teams, supporting each other and giving the illusion of popular support on the net.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No matter how silly they look they maintain the attitude that they're winning.

They refused to address the issue I raised about the Chinese spacewalk on this thread.**
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-latest-moon-hoax-documentary.163196/page-9#post-3645651

Why do you think they refused to address the issue of the Chinese spacewalk? Objective truth-seekers don't refuse to address important issues. Patriotic Americans usually just slink away when they're checkmated. They don't ignore the issue and shamelessly act as if that hadn't discredited them.

Have you tried assessing yourself with reference to the criteria I posted in my opening post? How many of those traits would you say fairly describe you, FatFreddy?

I'd say none. I simply use the scientific method.*** If a researcher doesn't use the scientific method, he can come to an erroneous conclusion. The pro-Apollo posters here don't use the scientific method (their ignoring the proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked is an example).



*
https://www.giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?t=31034

**
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?169361-The-Chinese-spacewalk-was-faked-in-a-water-tank


***
https://www.google.com/search?sourc...hUKEwjd9qHh7LvrAhXdAGMBHQKBAPMQ4dUDCAk&uact=5

 

[Ethernos D Grace]

It is really hard to prove something even if someone had the evidence and when evidence someone have is not enough. Like how a person can keep saying earth is flat and when given evidence by the opposing party they can say its not real either. How do you deal with something like this? Even if they are sent to space station. They might still say this is a hoax. Open the door and walk right out of the door with or without space suit. Then they might say this is an illusion and take off their suit and die. Again the other people with him would say this is an illusion to trap them and they all take their mask off. So you can prove something to someone and you can't prove something to someone without evidence. Maybe life is an illusion itself but would you not rather live a happy life then a miserable one?

 

[FatFreddy]

Like how a person can keep saying earth is flat and when given evidence by the opposing party they can say its not real either. How do you deal with something like this?

There's not that much you can do besides showing them the proof. If this doesn't convince a flat-earth believer that the Earth is spherical, he's hopeless.
https://www.google.com/search?q=roc...VBxhoKHVn5B_kQ_AUoA3oECAsQBQ&biw=1366&bih=657


Most of the people I encounter who think the Apollo moon missions were real refuse to take the time to look at the hoax proof. Those who do usually go into denial as it's quite a shock. I can see that they're shaken but they don't want to change their opinions anyway. That's a big paradigm change; it may take a while for them to get used to the new paradigm. If the person is over forty, he may stay in denial the rest of his life. I see that younger people can be more objective than older people because they don't have to admit they've believed a lie all of their lives.

 

[billvon]

Censorship is only necessary when a lie is being defended as the truth finally prevails when everyone can speak freely.

Or when cranks litter forums with troll posts. Look at Usenet for what happens when there's no moderation ("censorship" in your tongue.)

The guy sounds like a kook to me but most kooks know that two plus two equals four so a lot of kooks who've seen the proof* probably know the Apollo moon missions were faked.

He sounds exactly like you sound, to a tee.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and non-acceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the "image" and are hot and cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to "act their role in type" as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth.

Uh - you do realized you have just described yourself, right?

Why do you think they refused to address the issue of the Chinese spacewalk?

Most likely they got sick of your nonsense.

I'd say none. I simply use the scientific method.

You have proven time and time again that you don't understand the scientific method.

You start with a belief and then google madly until you find support for it, then put all your faith and belief in that result. That is the opposite of the scientific method. The scientific method starts by asking "how does X work?" Then you do research. If the answer isn't clear you consider whether an experiment would clear things up. You design the experiment and run it, then analyze the results. Often the results are unclear. Occasionally they clearly disprove your hypothesis, and therefore your hypothesis is incorrect. Occasionally they prove your hypothesis, in which case your hypothesis MAY be correct - but then has to be validated with many other experiments.

So let me ask you this. How many times have you used a vacuum chamber to determine whether your claims are correct? Not watched a Youtube video, used an actual vacuum chamber. How many times have you built a rocket to prove that the exhaust is the wrong color or something? Ever? Have you EVER run an experiment to see if what you claim is correct?

 

[Ethernos D Grace]

There's not that much you can do besides showing them the proof. If this doesn't convince a flat-earth believer that the Earth is spherical, he's hopeless.
https://www.google.com/search?q=roc...VBxhoKHVn5B_kQ_AUoA3oECAsQBQ&biw=1366&bih=657


Most of the people I encounter who think the Apollo moon missions were real refuse to take the time to look at the hoax proof. Those who do usually go into denial as it's quite a shock. I can see that they're shaken but they don't want to change their opinions anyway. That's a big paradigm change; it may take a while for them to get used to the new paradigm. If the person is over forty, he may stay in denial the rest of his life. I see that younger people can be more objective than older people because they don't have to admit they've believed a lie all of their lives.

Maybe that's how we humans are programmed but i think those who can belive in something is amazing too. I think those who believe in has sort of drive. Which i don't have so i do really envy them. It is also not a bad thing to believe in something like how religious person believes in god which give meaning to life in the same way atheist also don't believe in god which also gives meaning in their life. I simply don't have drive .sorry to complain here.

 

[FatFreddy]

Why do you think they refused to address the issue of the Chinese spacewalk?

Most likely they got sick of your nonsense.

This would probably get you disqualified if you were in a formal debate at a university. You'd at least get laughed out of the debating hall. This is called side-stepping the issue instead of addressing it.

So let me ask you this. How many times have you used a vacuum chamber to determine whether your claims are correct? Not watched a Youtube video, used an actual vacuum chamber. How many times have you built a rocket to prove that the exhaust is the wrong color or something? Ever? Have you EVER run an experiment to see if what you claim is correct?

https://www.clubconspiracy.com/counter-intellegience-tricks-and-techniques-t4702.html
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon).
------------------------------------------------------------

Look at the first proof presented at the top of this post.
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?169361-The-Chinese-spacewalk-was-faked-in-a-water-tank

Only a gas or a liquid medium would make the flag flutter like that. No gas chamber is necessary. You refused to address this issue on the Apollo thread. Let's here you address it on this thread.

 

[paddoboy]

This would probably get you disqualified if you were in a formal debate at a university. You'd at least get laughed out of the debating hall. This is called side-stepping the issue instead of addressing it.

You, your ilk, and your crazy notions and emotionally driven claims, would never make it into any serious debating hall. First and foremost, there is nothing actually to debate...the chinese conducted a space walk [pretty easy in this day and age...NASA went to the Moon 8 times, landed 6 times with 12 men walking on its surface.
Those momentous events will live forever in recorded history.
You and your nonsense will forever be lost on cyber space.