What is wrong with being a Conspiracy Theorist?

Yes I do. Are you suggesting that a person talking to themselves is suddenly more than one person? You seem to be struggling with the concept of 1 and more than 1. Talking to yourself or hearing voices does not suddenly make you more than one person. You are still one person, though maybe with a mental illness, but still just one person. Otherwise we would have to allow people with Multiple personality disorder or schizophrenia, one vote for every voice he has in his head. But we don't. He has one body, one brain, so he is defined as one person and gets one vote.

I did all the research required of any individual in understanding the concept and value of the number 1. I graduated kindergarten, and moved on to higher education getting my diploma from elementary school, middle school, and high school. Should a mathematician come on board and explain the value of 1 to you further? Would a degree in mathematics make you feel better about the explanation of the value of 1.

The dictionary defines one as 1
: being a single unit or thing

This is how we are using the term "one". Do you require any more research into the concept of one at this time or is that good enough for you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I understand that this the official line yes... not a problem..
What I have a problem is with the sheer fact that no one in their right mind signs off on a $2 billion dollar product with out exhaustive testing... no one...even if testing cost a few million dollars they would do it...and there would be so many double blinds to the testing... to ensure all possible errors are accounted for.

just think about it for a bit...$2billion investment about to go fizzzzzz....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

did you read my post where it said that if you delve in to deeper psychology ......
any way... I was just attempting to expand the conversation a bit... and succeeded too I might add... just not in a friendly manner obviously...

what was the original definition of schizophrenia do you recall?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jim Carrey does it great I reckon...
[video=youtube_share;0G7PgMdirio]http://youtu.be/0G7PgMdirio[/video]

 

Sadly, the reality of it is that this isn't always what happens. I know it seems like $2 billion should be enough to do whatever you want, but it isn't, and corners were cut to make the budget. I'm not saying it's a proud moment--it was actually a pretty big part of popular culture for a while--but it doesn't mean something is afoot.

 

I hardly believe that Jim Carey movies are now defining redefining the mathematical value of the number one. You may have noticed that his character does not physically split into two people, and even if it did, that's not possible in reality. Notice the film is considered a stupid humor comedy, not heavily based on reality. They take real concepts and blow them wildly out of proportion creating extreme exaggerations of real concepts and the exaggerations bring the urge to laugh to others.

One brain = one person.

If he had two physical brains that operated independently of each other then you would have a case for stating he may be more than one person. There is a case of conjoined twins and they appear to be one person with 2 heads. But because each brain is physically separate from the other and they think independently of each other they are considered two people. In order to drive they both have to get a license, to graduate they both have to study and do their homework, and they each get to cast a vote in elections.

Also note it says "Hank is Charlie" meaning they are the same person.

 

If you are considering a person to be unfriendly because they disagree with your statements and in doing so point out what they believe to be obvious flaws in your logic then everyone on this forum is unfriendly including you. You seem to dislike the definition of "conspiracy theorist". Too bad, you don't get to decide how the majority of the people who use the expression interpret its meaning.

I don't know what you are referring to when you say original. I am not aware of the illness being redefined, however I know that in the field of psychology they do modify and reclassify illnesses as they gain more understanding of it. For instance, manic depression has been renamed bipolar disorder. The improved understanding of something justifies the change in name or definition and therefor makes any previous definitions irrelevant.

But as of now it seems this is the definition of schizophrenia:

So what's your point? Are you looking for a tangent that takes us away from the question stated in the OP?

 

The government can (and does) control the weather...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_modification
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8587725.stm

Vaccines may well cause autism...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535

^The last line of that abstract shows how looking at conspiracy theories can be beneficial...
"...Further study into the relationship between vaccines and autism is warranted..."
They can identify areas of concern and provide direction for problem solving.

Critical thinking is the key so that we dont lump issues like this together with things like 'Satan influenced the government to kill us all through airplane chem-trails'. It is important to create a distinction between obvious paranoia driven fears and legitimate areas of concern.

The (second) guy in the following video gets my respect. He says (at some point in his 30 min talk) "...enough people are concerned about this that we should atleast take a look..."
An honorable attitude. And also a scientific one i.e no condemnation before investigation

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB7-lzzEC8g

 

You're kinda awesome, you know that?

 

I have my moments....

and I reserve the right to remind you that you said this at a later time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

the original definition of schizophrenia was along the lines of "split mind" It was evident that polariation of the personality was present. There fore a person suffering this condition exhibited signs of what was later refrred to as a very rare "multiple personality" Often confusing the two...

It is quite reasonable to say that a person suffering such fragmented states can indeed consider himself to be effectively more than 1 and enter into self conspiracy...
Just about every disordered conspiracy theoriest is suffering a similar form of this condition. [as far as I have observed any way]

Your glib and sarcastic, elitist attitude serves you badly....
let me remind you of the OP..

I agree totally with this statement but wonder at what cost to society the inspiration they supply is.

Suffice to say I believe every human is suffering this condition in some form and various degrees of severity. It is only when societal dysfunction occurs that alarm bells go of.


If you "seagypsy" wish to confine your thinking to your own paradigm with out input of others then by all means be critical [as is your right] of those who wish to see something more expansive.

I don't have a problem with being corrected if it is reasonably founded but you obviously do...

[watches this space for your reaction]

[video=youtube;aS_d0Ayjw4o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS_d0Ayjw4o[/video]

and he wins a nobel...

even after enduring Insulin coma therapy... which is utterly amazing ...

and he was a C' ter...

I guess my main interest in this topic is the relevants to paranoia....which appears extremely related...

 

Again, when the definition is changed due to better understanding of the condition, the original definition is no longer valid. The evidence you have presented is outdated and irrelevant.

If I consider my big rig truck to be a tricycle, does that make my truck a tricycle? No, someone's false interpretation of reality does not change reality. If I put on a beard and mustache and dress like a man, some people may perceive me to be a man and make the false assumption that I am a man, but the reality stands that I am not a man. I am a woman no matter how many people I fool, even if I fool myself.

Schizophrenia is not the same as Multiple Personality Disorder (Dissociative Identity Disorder). Schizophrenia is more associated with hallucinations of people or things that are not there, where as the latter is an actual splintering of the mind.

Note that in the DID (multiple personality disorder) the patient is still referred to as an individual. A term synonymous with the number one. An individual is a single unit just as "one" defines a single unit. This is because the patient is still just one person regardless of what delusions he/she holds.

Though you have the names of disorders confused at least you are willing to agree that people labeled as conspiracy theorists usually display some kind of mental illness. Why you insist that a single individual can be considered a conspirator if he plots with voices in his head is beyond me. This thread is not even supposed to be about if a conspiracy theorist is a conspirator themselves. But then you have been avoiding addressing the OP this entire thread until this post.

You read too much into my comments. Correcting someone when they are wrong does not automatically make someone an elitist. If it did, then every school teacher in the world would be an elitist because they correct people all the time. I have not been sarcastic at all, up to this point. I am sincerely trying to help you understand. Your refusal or inability, whichever it is, to grasp simple concepts (such as the concept of 1 )has been frustrating me. I can't help but wonder if you are playing dumb just to be difficult. Because I have seen you post very rationally and calmly before. I have seen you display the ability to be logical and reasonable. So I know you are not dumb. If you are playing dumb, the only reason for doing so that I can think of is that you carry a grudge across threads.

Glib doesn't apply on any level. I put a lot of thought into my posts which may be why I have managed to not call you any names or insult you, but have managed to only address your words rather than your character. Something you have just failed at by stating I have a glib and sarcastic, elitist attitude.

Embarrassingly, I have to admit to having to look up the meaning of glib and elitist. I have seen the words used countless times but have never been able to discern what exactly they meant from context. All I had ever been able to glean from the context is that they were not flattering terms. This being the first time these words have been used to describe me (that I know of) I finally looked them up. I don't know a lot of insults. I have never felt it useful to insult people when trying to make a point so I don't have a huge list of insults in my vocabulary. Though being on this forum I am learning as I go. And you can be proud to have taught me 2 new insults in one post. Be proud of such an auspicious accomplishment and contribution to the forum. <--- Now that was sarcasm!

Also I have never lost focus of the OP. In fact, I have redirected the thread back to the OP more than once. I have avoided discussing any individual conspiracy theory, unlike yourself. I have not gone on any tangents to argue the validity of any particular conspiracy theories. Someone else brought up 9/11 and you have debated the merit of some conspiracy theory concerning the space telescope. Jan Ardena seems to have vanished from the thread they started and its a shame. I don't usually like threads by Jan Ardena nor do I like discussing anything with them. I don't have the patience.

And this is the first time you directly addressed the OP as far as I can remember. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Is there some special meaning implied by putting my id in quotes? Just curious. I haven't been critical. I have only been trying to help you understand the definition the terms we are discussing. You have taken it upon yourself to go into a campaign against anyone in the thread that agrees to the definition as I and others have described it.

Actually it is not my own paradigm. My own paradigm would be to consider the terms "conspiracy theorist" to be an oxymoron. Balerion, someone who I usually disagree with quite vehemently, corrected me and pointed out that for the purpose of the thread we should stick to the accepted common usage of the expression rather than give in to petty semantics. I agreed to comply with that suggestion for the remainder of the thread and have not attempted to return to my personal interpretation of the words.

See above. I was corrected by Balerion and graciously accepted that correction, without any resistance. You have pretended to accept correction then attempted, again, to redefine the parameters of the conversation in order to go back and convince us that you are indeed right even though you "accepted correction".

Lol wow, are you seething in anticipation? Are you expecting me to cry and say... "Woe is me, I have been defeated by the great Quantam Quack!"? Sorry to disappoint you but you have not achieved your goal, unless it was to further display vitriolic stubbornness in refusing to acknowledge the accepted commonly usage meaning of the expression "conspiracy theorist".

No one has asserted that Conspiracy theorists are not capable of accomplishing great things. So I don't see what your point is. No one has said that CTers should be locked up or otherwise removed from society.

I will say this much, he achieved this high honor in spite of his condition, not because of it. Had he not had his mental illness he likely would have achieved much more.

His condition caused harm to himself and his family and friends. His condition gave way to being a conspiracy theorist and as a result he alienated those he loved and obsessed over proving his suspicions to be substantiated. I have seen the movie. He was miserable most of the time and I am certain he would have given his right arm to just make the delusions go away so he could know what reality was.

Is your sensitivity to this topic due to the fact some members on this forum have expressed the opinion that YOU are a conspiracy theorist and you simply do not want such negative definitions to apply to yourself?

I'm sorry if this is hitting a sore spot for you. I read what you said about your brother in the other thread. I have had my own unpleasant interactions with psychologists and mental illness. So I do empathize with you.

There is a common theme I see on this forum. When someone behaves badly, and they finally come to realize it, or one of their supporters realizes it, someone, if not the individual themselves, makes an argument that their behavior should be excused because they have had bad things happen to them. Boo hoo. Everyone has unpleasant experiences in life. Some people have horrifying experiences. None of that is an excuse to behave badly. My life has been a nightmare most of my adult life. People have asked me to let them write a book about my life. I have been told I should sell my story to Hollywood. But no matter how bad my life has been, I do not feel any of it gives me permission to behave badly.

If someone is abused as a child that does not permit them to abuse their own children. Sure people take note of the fact that the abuser was once the abused, this helps understand what led to the abuse, but it in no way excuses it. Knowing the triggers for bad behavior and source of unpleasant feelings does nothing more than help us understand how to prevent such things.

I feel sorry for you that you have carried that pain with you for so long. But you must understand, until you let it go and accept what happened as something out of your control, you will continue to let it affect your behavior in the present. Would your brother want this pain to haunt you and prevent you from getting along with others for the rest of your life? That you can answer to yourself. Any response would benefit only yourself.

Unless you can stop taking correction personally, I will not discuss this thread with you any further. IMO, you do not appear to want to understand simple things, you appear to want validation for yourself. If you are worried that the label given to you by some makes you a bad person, rest assured it does not. But you owe it to yourself to get outside help in determining if the opinions of those who call you a CT are substantiated and whether or not there are any other issues that need to be addressed so that you can have confidence in yourself, that you know yourself, that you can trust yourself. There is nothing wrong with questioning your own sanity and getting evaluated just to be on the safe side. I have done it and I am a better person than I was for having done it.

This will be my last post to you in this thread because to say any more than i have said in this post would be redundant and annoying to other posters. I hope you take the time to really think about what I have said and accept my sincere apologies if I hurt your feelings in anyway. It has never been my intention to do so. I do not dislike you. But you don't have to dislike someone to disagree with them. And I would feel disrespectful towards you if I did not correct your misunderstanding of something that draws your attention so strongly. To leave you in the dark would be to call you stupid and incapable of learning or unworthy of knowledge. I simply will not treat you with that level of disrespect.

 

It isn't, as SG points out, but what the hell are you even talking about? You seem to have a problem differentiating between conspirators and conspiracy theorists.

 

nay! you posted exactly as I thought you would... well done

oh and so did Balerion btw... sooo predictable...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:m:

 

nope just exploring what makes a typical c'ter tick....

 

No, you're "exploring" an incorrect definition of schizophrenia and trying to say that such a person can have a conspiracy with themselves. Again, you seem to have no conception of the difference between a conspirator and a conspiracy theorist.

 

I suggest you study that definition really well and apply it properly before you go on about how you know what it means....You need to do better than a wiki too btw because those articels are not quite there yet...

Start with NPD do a bit of research into our friend called Narcissus and try to work out how halucinations, both visual, auditory and other come into it.
Then start to look at the pathology and the treatement and the DSM guidlines/regulations definition....you know the DSM don't you? or do you?

Compare all with each different countries version and come to an international point of view.. when your are ready post a topic and have it debated heatedly for the next 3 years or so and still not come to a conclusion of any value.
Note try doing the same for Eastern countries like India, Nepal, Pakistan, Vietnam, Thailand and other Asian countries and see just how complex the issue is...
Challenge: post your definition in the human sciences forum and see what happens... go on... you can do it you know... why not?
One of my first threads to sciforums 8 years ago was titled: "A new approach to mental illness" and actually acheived something believe it or not.. so have go you never know what may come of it..

my conspiracy theory of the day: Balerion is only posting to make me look good... thanks Balerion for doing such a good job.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This is hysterical coming from you, since you just tried to say that schizophrenia was the same thing as Multiple-Personality Disorder.

At this point, it's clear you're punching above your weight. You didn't understand what "conspiracy' means, you don't know the difference between "conspirator" and "conspiracy theorist," and you think schizophrenia is the same as DID. I mean, this is silly. Get an education, then come back and talk.

The only thing I can commend you on is your change of avatar. Very accurate, since you end up with egg on your face in every thread.

 

I said:

surer badly structured sentance... so whilst you are mistaken you can be forgiven for being so....

no egg yet... show one thread where egg has actually happened?

 

I mean, I grant you that your sentence structure and spelling is absurdly poor ("there fore??" Really?) but you also went on to say:

So you said that a person suffering from either DID or schizophrenia can be more than one person and conspire with themselves. Not only does this have nothing to do with conspiracy theorists, it's completely wrong as well.

Every thread. It's happened a few times in this very thread.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...acy-Theorist&p=2979618&viewfull=1#post2979618

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...acy-Theorist&p=2980016&viewfull=1#post2980016

Shall I go on? You get nothing right.