Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists

As Project Censored shows year after year, this is not true. Many stories that are of interest to people are not reported or are not reported to any great extent. This introduces a bias standard commercial media that tends to reinforce right-wing myths about the nature of the USA.
What media are you talking about? In the US we have basically to flavors of media, the right wing media and the mainstream media. Now, because media organizations are driven by profits, they tend to favor sensationalism and that does generally favor the right wing. But if you pay attention, credible sources will report all of the truth. Case in point, was the swift boating of John Kerry. All the data was reported in credible news agencies like CNN; however that didn't stop CNN from sensationalizing everything else and dragging it out giving the appearance there was some there, there, when in fact there wasn't.

Journalism and media institutions, with few exceptions, e.g. Fox News, change over time. CNN has changed. It's much less forgiving of Republican propaganda than it once was, though it still has a penchant for sensationalism. And as long as we have a free and independent press that will always be the case. Do you want a state controlled press a la Putin or a free press? I'll take the free press every day.
 
What media are you talking about? In the US we have basically to flavors of media, the right wing media and the mainstream media. Now, because media organizations are driven by profits, they tend to favor sensationalism and that does generally favor the right wing. But if you pay attention, credible sources will report all of the truth. Case in point, was the swift boating of John Kerry. All the data was reported in credible news agencies like CNN; however that didn't stop CNN from sensationalizing everything else and dragging it out giving the appearance there was some there, there, when in fact there wasn't.
One can do the research on this one's self through Project Censored. http://projectcensored.org/


I'll take the free press every day.
The "free press" as you describe it is certainly at the whim of some very powerful systematic forces. A state-funded media with a mandate to publicize stories that get shafted because of these forces would be a powerful addition to democracy.
 
Bookmarked for the future, but that is one fugly webpage layout. Bad colors and fonts, like a child committed it. :confused:
 
The "free press" as you describe it is certainly at the whim of some very powerful systematic forces. A state-funded media with a mandate to publicize stories that get shafted because of these forces would be a powerful addition to democracy.

You mean like Putin's state funded and controlled media? While it has worked well for Putin, I don't think it has worked well for everyone else.

In the US we also have a public media source, NPR, which operates a cable television and radio networks. It's partially funded by government and by private donors. Frankly, it's the best media source in the country. I also like some foreign media sources. NPR is in many ways reminiscent of what the media once was in The United States.

Before Republicans repealed The Fairness Doctrine, media outlets were required to hold fair and honest discussions of issues of national importance. That's no longer the case, and that's why we have the partisan media like Fox News and right wing radio. I think The Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated. Democrats have tried in the past, but they have always been rebuffed by Republicans. As long as Republicans control both houses of Congress The Fairness Doctrine will not be restored.

Republican media is a two edged sword for Republicans. It has helped them control Congress and smaller states. It has created a very enthusiastic base. But it has also made the party increasingly radical. That's how you get a guy like Trump on the top of the Republican ticket.
 
You mean like Putin's state funded and controlled media? While it has worked well for Putin, I don't think it has worked well for everyone else.

In the US we also have a public media source, NPR, which operates a cable television and radio networks. It's partially funded by government and by private donors. Frankly, it's the best media source in the country. I also like some foreign media sources. NPR is in many ways reminiscent of what the media once was in The United States.

Before Republicans repealed The Fairness Doctrine, media outlets were required to hold fair and honest discussions of issues of national importance. That's no longer the case, and that's why we have the partisan media like Fox News and right wing radio. I think The Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated. Democrats have tried in the past, but they have always been rebuffed by Republicans. As long as Republicans control both houses of Congress The Fairness Doctrine will not be restored.

Republican media is a two edged sword for Republicans. It has helped them control Congress and smaller states. It has created a very enthusiastic base. But it has also made the party increasingly radical. That's how you get a guy like Trump on the top of the Republican ticket.

Yes, I think I agree with Phys Bang: you seem to be posing a false antithesis between state-funded and free when what you have in mind, I think, is the antithesis between state-controlled and free.

In the UK we have this thing called the BBC. It is not exactly state funded but it has a monopoly right to tax the public, via an annual charge on anyone owning a TV set, which is enshrined in law by the state. But it is not state-controlled, as any UK government minister who has been grilled by one of its interviewers will be keen to point out to to you.
 
Yes, I think I agree with Phys Bang: you seem to be posing a false antithesis between state-funded and free when what you have in mind, I think, is the antithesis between state-controlled and free.

In the UK we have this thing called the BBC. It is not exactly state funded but it has a monopoly right to tax the public, via an annual charge on anyone owning a TV set, which is enshrined in law by the state. But it is not state-controlled, as any UK government minister who has been grilled by one of its interviewers will be keen to point out to to you.

How so? We are talking about different mediums that you need to take into account. The the term "the press" refers to print medium an not television or wireless mediums. That would exclude the BBC as it is a television and radio operation. You have that thing called the BBC, and it's very good. It's one of the best and renowned as such around the globe. Our counterpart to the BBC is as I previously posted, the NPR, National Public Radio. NPR is funded by a tax dollars and private contributions, but it doesn't have the ability to tax.

Unlike Mother Russia the Western press isn't funded or controlled by government. It's a private enterprise. The broadcast medium is a mixed bag, but it's mostly privately funded and privately controlled. However, in the US the one exception is NPR which is partly government funded and partly privately funded as charitable organization. It operates and exists outside of government even though it is party government funded. But in any case, content isn't government controlled as it is in places like Russia. Unlike Russia, the head of state has no control over content.
 
How so? We are talking about different mediums that you need to take into account. The the term "the press" refers to print medium an not television or wireless mediums. That would exclude the BBC as it is a television and radio operation. You have that thing called the BBC, and it's very good. It's one of the best and renowned as such around the globe. Our counterpart to the BBC is as I previously posted, the NPR, National Public Radio. NPR is funded by a tax dollars and private contributions, but it doesn't have the ability to tax.

Unlike Mother Russia the Western press isn't funded or controlled by government. It's a private enterprise. The broadcast medium is a mixed bag, but it's mostly privately funded and privately controlled. However, in the US the one exception is NPR which is partly government funded and partly privately funded as charitable organization. It operates and exists outside of government even though it is party government funded. But in any case, content isn't government controlled as it is in places like Russia. Unlike Russia, the head of state has no control over content.

Ah I see, you are referring to the "press" in its narrow literal sense, as print media, rather than the broader political sense in which the expression "freedom of the press" is commonly used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press
 
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?
Donald Trump has exceeded every last one of these and more. You are prescient.
 
Sadly it seems this forum isn't so much about discussing the science and proof behind "conspiracies" more than it is to outright debunk them and make those that question official narratives to look like fools.

That's not science.

Any scientist will tell you that science should be tested and questioned as nothing is above investigation, however the "science" professionals seemingly on this site act completely the opposite and instead make personal remarks to the posters rather than trying to prove points with SCIENCE. I mean this is a science forum isn't it?

For these people I would suggest looking into a psychological phenomena named 'cognitive dissonance' to help understand their position. This occurs when new ideas or information conflict with previously formed ideologies and accepted beliefs. In other words your brain is refusing to accept that anything other than what you believe to be true, can be true. Hence why so many on here seem to make posts personal, ignore the facts and instead ridicule someone for having a different opinion and questioning science as scientists themselves say to do. How hypocritical.
 
Hello cloud_9. Welcome to sciforums!

Sadly it seems this forum isn't so much about discussing the science and proof behind "conspiracies" more than it is to outright debunk them and make those that question official narratives to look like fools.
If you review our threads, you will find many instances where the evidence put forward by conspiracy theorists is put to the test.

However, in the end it is up to those who are proposing a conspiracy to come up with good evidence that it exists, not for others to have to go to the trouble to debunk every crazy idea from scratch.

From your post, I'm guessing you believe in one or two conspiracy theories yourself. Are you perhaps worried that people here might attempt to debunk one of the theories you favour?

For these people I would suggest looking into a psychological phenomena named 'cognitive dissonance' to help understand their position. This occurs when new ideas or information conflict with previously formed ideologies and accepted beliefs. In other words your brain is refusing to accept that anything other than what you believe to be true, can be true.
That's confirmation bias, isn't it? Cognitive dissonance, as I understand it, comes from simultaneously trying to hold onto beliefs that actually contradict each other.
 
Hello cloud_9. Welcome to sciforums!

If you review our threads, you will find many instances where the evidence put forward by conspiracy theorists is put to the test.

However, in the end it is up to those who are proposing a conspiracy to come up with good evidence that it exists, not for others to have to go to the trouble to debunk every crazy idea from scratch.

From your post, I'm guessing you believe in one or two conspiracy theories yourself. Are you perhaps worried that people here might attempt to debunk one of the theories you favour?

Hi James and thanks.

Yes really I was referring to the "conspiracy" thread which admittedly is the only thread I have checked out. It was the one I landed on from a google search)

You are right about people proposing evidence but that's where my point came from that (in this thread at least) posters mostly got shot down by people not looking at the evidence and instead lambasting the person that presented it. I guess for a science forum I just expected a more balanced, neutral assessment from both parties rather than mocking if something went against the "widely accepted belief".

Having said that maybe I should be surprised that's the case. Let me pass you over to Arthur Schopenhauer - "All truth passes through three stages; first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, third it is accepted as being self evident."

Yes I do believe in one particular "conspiracy theory" in being correct. Or I mean I believe an opposite story to the one officially accepted. However what I don't like about the term "conspiracy theorist" is that is assumes if you believe in one conspiracy, you believe in them all. That's simply ridiculous. and not true. At least not for me.

That's confirmation bias, isn't it? Cognitive dissonance, as I understand it, comes from simultaneously trying to hold onto beliefs that actually contradict each other.

They are new beliefs that come to fruition that don't bode with existing beliefs so are rejected no matter how true or not they are relating to reality.
 
Hi James and thanks.

Yes really I was referring to the "conspiracy" thread which admittedly is the only thread I have checked out. It was the one I landed on from a google search)

You are right about people proposing evidence but that's where my point came from that (in this thread at least) posters mostly got shot down by people not looking at the evidence and instead lambasting the person that presented it. I guess for a science forum I just expected a more balanced, neutral assessment from both parties rather than mocking if something went against the "widely accepted belief".

Having said that maybe I should be surprised that's the case. Let me pass you over to Arthur Schopenhauer - "All truth passes through three stages; first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, third it is accepted as being self evident."

Yes I do believe in one particular "conspiracy theory" in being correct. Or I mean I believe an opposite story to the one officially accepted. However what I don't like about the term "conspiracy theorist" is that is assumes if you believe in one conspiracy, you believe in them all. That's simply ridiculous. and not true. At least not for me.



They are new beliefs that come to fruition that don't bode with existing beliefs so are rejected no matter how true or not they are relating to reality.
Actually, let me offer a word in praise of cognitive dissonance.

In spite of it having become to some degree a piece of voguish psychobabble, it is quite interesting, I think, in the context of science. It seems to me there is quite a lot of it in the experience of science. Consider something like the wave/particle nature of matter. These are two conflicting ideas and we (in chemistry at least) flip-flop quite happily between the two, according to the problem we are trying to address. We have many other instances in which we choose a model for a particular job, knowing that it conflicts with another model.

In fact, I suspect that, more broadly, tolerance of cognitive dissonance may be essential to our sanity in life, as it is not possible to marry up all the apparently conflicting information we have about the world.

Back to conspiracies, it seems to me they are not really the subject of science. They are, where they exist, social phenomena, more suited to investigation by journalists, lawyers, or even the police, than by scientists, surely?
 
Last edited:
I would like to see evidence of that as well. The US was highly isolationist going into WWII, so all the pro-US propaganda was about the threat to the US itself.
Necro alert: The US was highly isolationist in 1939. By the Fall of France in 1940 public opinion had swung toward helping Britain even at the cost of going to war with Germany and Italy. By the last week of November, 1941, ~75% of the US population stated they knew we'd have to fight the Axis sooner or later. They favored arming merchant ships even if it meant going to war. This information is available in the Gallup records.

(This is my area of specialization, so I couldn't let this slide.)
 
""Conspiracy Theorist" is tactic used to discredit those of us who can see through the government/media-bullshit that you, evidently, cannot"

That's why I prefer the term "conspiracy nut".
 
Necro alert: The US was highly isolationist in 1939. By the Fall of France in 1940 public opinion had swung toward helping Britain even at the cost of going to war with Germany and Italy. By the last week of November, 1941, ~75% of the US population stated they knew we'd have to fight the Axis sooner or later. They favored arming merchant ships even if it meant going to war. This information is available in the Gallup records.

(This is my area of specialization, so I couldn't let this slide.)
Here's some revisionist info I collected.
http://www.flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?t=12196&start=0
 
Back
Top