View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theorist

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theorist

Postby NinjaPuppy » 23 Sep 2012, 22:53

SydneyPSIder wrote:If you think this makes the American empire and administration look like lying, thieving jackals over many decades, then you would be right.

Some. OK, maybe more than not.

SydneyPSIder wrote:Much of the information has been gained from the internet, in fact the internet has been the principal tool for disseminating this kind of information to most people out there -- the newspapers and investigative journalists only turn up so much.

While they may only turn up so much, editors and owners also have the option to print what they see fit. It seems as if the major advertisers are the ones who have some say in what is printed nowadays.

SydneyPSIder wrote:Now I'll sit here and wait for the MIB to appear at my door, except they will definitely be locals tracing my IP address, not from outer space. Go on, really?, send them...

I doubt that really? would exert the energy. We only see him when he's got plenty of free time on his hands or we've got a flurry of activity on the forum that is of interest to him. It's always a pleasant surprise to see him pop up with his wit and wisdom. He makes for good conversation and he will keep you on your toes.

As for the MIB, they probably have bigger fish to fry. But so you don't feel left out, I traced your IP if that makes you feel any better. I do it with some newbies for different reasons but unless you want to go into a rant that borders on either treason or terrorism, there's not much to worry about. Well...except for your distrust of organized government but I can understand that.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44






Re: Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theorist

Postby really? » 24 Sep 2012, 00:20

NinjaPuppy wrote:
really? wrote:
Craig Browning wrote:PS those linked sites are crap and written by still more pseudosceptics to confirm their own world view. Death by self-referentialism.

Am I to understand that you buy into all the CTs out there in much the same manner our host (Winston) tends to do?


In light of Sid and others here clearly demonstrating listed characteristics why would you say these articles speak untruth ? Which is what I take you too mean by crap.

Since I called them "crap" too, I'm going to add my $.02 here. The other articles are not as well written as the "Scientific American" article. For comparison sake I'll stick with the http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html for a one on one scenario.

urban75 starts off with childish name calling right off the bat. While name calling works well with elementary school crowd, it does not serve much of a purpose when trying to prove an adult point. Of course that is an editors note and not the actual article. As for the written article by Donna Ferentes it does reference a claimed "Wikipedia" list: "Wikipedia: conspiracy theory guide" if you put that header into the Google search, you do not get that actual list. I'd call that misleading or an error. Even if that claimed Wikipedia: conspiracy guide does in fact exist in that exact form, that part of the article is also very well written. The actual article is a parody of sorts and while it may be written on facts, it doesn't have the same quality as the Scientific American article or even the so called "Wikipedia: conspiracy guide" at the bottom.

Getting back to Ms. Ferentes' and her original work of art here. Yes, it's cute but she's sterotyping with tongue in cheek. It may be based on nothing more than her personal experiences with facts thrown in for good measure but you can clearly sense the bias in her work. I would say that it was not written to make any point other than to inflame CTers or to blow off steam from having to deal with them in some capacity.

I certainly would NOT say that these article speak untruth or rather to eliminate a double negative here, they do in fact speak the truth but were not written with the intent to educate but to degrade anyone who may want to entertain any possible area of a CT or an entire CT.


Criticisms how the articles were written is superfluous to the point I am making. The important thing to look at is are the characteristics of ct'ers, their motivations for trusting their own world view over facts presented in these articles truthful. Judging by the examples seen here and exhibited elsewhere on other forums it clear these articles do paint an accurate overview of all ct'ers.

There are three things you can do with ct'ers; a.don't engage them, b.try to reason with them, c. if b doesn't work, then mock them by pointing out the errors in their reasoning. d. when you get tired of mocking them do a,b c,d on a limited basis for it gets tiring going over the same bumpy road again and again with the same person.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theorist

Postby NinjaPuppy » 24 Sep 2012, 01:09

really? wrote:It does not matter to me how they were written. The important thing to look at is are the characteristics of ct'ers, their motivations for trusting their own world view over facts presented in these articles truthful. Judging by the examples seen here and exhibited elsewhere on other forums it clear these articles do paint an accurate overview of all ct'ers.

I agreed with your POV that the articles were truthful. I also expressed my POV about the quality and bias comparing two of the 4 links. The fact that my POV does not matter to you is irrelevant to me and what I have to say.

really? wrote:There are three things you can do with ct'ers; a.don't engage them, b.try to reason with them, c. if b doesn't work, then mock them by pointing out the errors in their reasoning. d. when you get tired of mocking them do a,b c, d on a limited basis for it gets tiring going over the same bumpy road again and again with the same person.

Just like 'dead cats' and 'lawyers', I'm sure that we can come up with a list of "101 Things To Do With A CTer" and perhaps even make good money if it were actually published. However, mocking someone on their beliefs, upbringing, misinformation, misunderstanding or for wanting to discuss a topic that is of interest or concern to them, is simply rude. It discourages their chance to learn the facts rather than quench their thirst for the right answer. Even if there is no right answer.

I will totally agree with you that many of the people who focus on or frequent CT forums can fit into the Scientific American article perfectly and display all of the following:
The Conspiracy Theory Detector
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... y-director

Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.
The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.
The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.
Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.
The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.
The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.
The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.
The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.
The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.
The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.
The fact that politicians sometimes lie or that corporations occasionally cheat does not mean that every event is the result of a tortuous conspiracy. Most of the time stuff just happens, and our brains connect the dots into meaningful patterns.

*Erratum (12/6/10): In this quote the word "economy" should be "academy". Also, the [sic] annotation should be disregarded.


As compared to:
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

Starting with this at the beginning of her writing- but only "editor" is given credit for these following remarks.
Conspiracy theorists
AKA 'conspiraloons', 'tinfoil hatters', 'loonspuds', 'fruit'n'nut jobs' etc.
Updated 29th April 2009.

Note from editor: because of the high profile nature of the external linkurban75 bulletin boards, we often suffer obsessive conspiracy theorists or (guffaw) 'truth seekers' filling up the boards with fact-free claims, evidence-untroubled epilogues and vast reams of tedious cut'n'paste, invariably regurgitated from some dubious internet site.

We hope this information will be of use if you encounter a conspiraloon while on the boards.


I have no doubt that Ms. Ferentes' article is helpful when dealing with the classic conspiraloon. But until you read enough of a persons POV on a CT, how do you decide that they are one? It's not like you can see their tinfoil hat through your computer. You can make an assumption in short order but if you mock their post right out of the gate, how do you expect a new person to react? If you mock, they get defensive. That's human nature. One big nasty circle as you posted here:
There are three things you can do with ct'ers; a.don't engage them, b.try to reason with them, c. if b doesn't work, then mock them by pointing out the errors in their reasoning. d. when you get tired of mocking them do a,b c, d on a limited basis for it gets tiring going over the same bumpy road again and again with the same person.

As Albert Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.”. Are CTers driving you to insanity while you are trying to point out their insanity? :lol:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theorist

Postby really? » 24 Sep 2012, 06:00

NinjaPuppy wrote:
really? wrote:It does not matter to me how they were written. The important thing to look at is are the characteristics of ct'ers, their motivations for trusting their own world view over facts presented in these articles truthful. Judging by the examples seen here and exhibited elsewhere on other forums it clear these articles do paint an accurate overview of all ct'ers.

I agreed with your POV that the articles were truthful. I also expressed my POV about the quality and bias comparing two of the 4 links. The fact that my POV does not matter to you is irrelevant to me and what I have to say.

really? wrote:There are three things you can do with ct'ers; a.don't engage them, b.try to reason with them, c. if b doesn't work, then mock them by pointing out the errors in their reasoning. d. when you get tired of mocking them do a,b c, d on a limited basis for it gets tiring going over the same bumpy road again and again with the same person.

Just like 'dead cats' and 'lawyers', I'm sure that we can come up with a list of "101 Things To Do With A CTer" and perhaps even make good money if it were actually published. However, mocking someone on their beliefs, upbringing, misinformation, misunderstanding or for wanting to discuss a topic that is of interest or concern to them, is simply rude. It discourages their chance to learn the facts rather than quench their thirst for the right answer. Even if there is no right answer.

I will totally agree with you that many of the people who focus on or frequent CT forums can fit into the Scientific American article perfectly and display all of the following:
The Conspiracy Theory Detector
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... y-director

Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.
The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.
The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.
Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.
The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.
The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.
The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.
The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.
The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.
The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.
The fact that politicians sometimes lie or that corporations occasionally cheat does not mean that every event is the result of a tortuous conspiracy. Most of the time stuff just happens, and our brains connect the dots into meaningful patterns.

*Erratum (12/6/10): In this quote the word "economy" should be "academy". Also, the [sic] annotation should be disregarded.


As compared to:
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

Starting with this at the beginning of her writing- but only "editor" is given credit for these following remarks.
Conspiracy theorists
AKA 'conspiraloons', 'tinfoil hatters', 'loonspuds', 'fruit'n'nut jobs' etc.
Updated 29th April 2009.

Note from editor: because of the high profile nature of the external linkurban75 bulletin boards, we often suffer obsessive conspiracy theorists or (guffaw) 'truth seekers' filling up the boards with fact-free claims, evidence-untroubled epilogues and vast reams of tedious cut'n'paste, invariably regurgitated from some dubious internet site.

We hope this information will be of use if you encounter a conspiraloon while on the boards.


I have no doubt that Ms. Ferentes' article is helpful when dealing with the classic conspiraloon. But until you read enough of a persons POV on a CT, how do you decide that they are one? It's not like you can see their tinfoil hat through your computer. You can make an assumption in short order but if you mock their post right out of the gate, how do you expect a new person to react?


How can you tell if someone is wearing a tinfoil hat ? It all depends on the specific conspiracy and prior experience with ct'ers. If its the assassination conspiracy of Abe Lincoln for example that's a well documented conspiracy and no tinfoil hat. However, if the conspiracy is the moon landing hoax, then you are well into categorizing a person as part of the tinfoil hat crowd.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theorist

Postby SydneyPSIder » 24 Sep 2012, 08:20

NinjaPuppy wrote:As for the MIB, they probably have bigger fish to fry. But so you don't feel left out, I traced your IP if that makes you feel any better. I do it with some newbies for different reasons but unless you want to go into a rant that borders on either treason or terrorism, there's not much to worry about. Well...except for your distrust of organized government but I can understand that.

lol, I'll be in the cell next to Julian Assange...
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theorist

Postby NinjaPuppy » 24 Sep 2012, 10:06

really? wrote:]However, if the conspiracy is the moon landing hoax, then you are well into categorizing a person as part of the tinfoil hat crowd.

I happen to be one of those people who has always suspected that the footage we were shown from the moon was done on a sound stage. Not that I don't believe that we went to the moon but logic says that if I still can't get a decent satellite signal from space with today's technology, and back then you DID need tinfoil to get a TV signal in most areas, there's a chance that there might be some truth to some of the claims.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theorist

Postby really? » 24 Sep 2012, 10:30

NinjaPuppy wrote:
really? wrote:]However, if the conspiracy is the moon landing hoax, then you are well into categorizing a person as part of the tinfoil hat crowd.

I happen to be one of those people who has always suspected that the footage we were shown from the moon was done on a sound stage. Not that I don't believe that we went to the moon but logic says that if I still can't get a decent satellite signal from space with today's technology, and back then you DID need tinfoil to get a TV signal in most areas, there's a chance that there might be some truth to some of the claims.


No chance. If that were a plausible possibility that we did not go, the former Soviet Union would have made it known to the world that we did not go. They were no friends to us during the Cold War. They monitored our technological progress as much as we monitored theirs. To demonstrate the point, an incident if you remember your history occurred called The Bay of Pigs which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Remember both superpowers were on the path to likely nuclear war with each other. Always factor that into the equation.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theorist

Postby NinjaPuppy » 24 Sep 2012, 10:46

I didn't say that we didn't go to the moon. I'm sure that we did. I'm sure that we sent men to the moon, placed a flag up there and it wouldn't surprise me if the astronauts were upset that due to their spacesuits, they couldn't pee and mark their territory.

I said that I believe that the TV footage of the moon landing, that we were shown, was shot on a sound stage.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theorist

Postby NinjaPuppy » 24 Sep 2012, 10:58

really? wrote:To demonstrate the point, an incident if you remember your history occurred called The Bay of Pigs which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Remember both superpowers were on the path to likely nuclear war with each other. Always factor that into the equation.

All you youngins' are just too damned cute sometimes. No, I can't remember my history of these incidents. I do remember them as an actual part of my growing up. I'm from the "Duck and cover" generation. We were taught what to do in the event of an attack from these incidents in school. I was very aware of the tension at the time as it was a daily part of life. A classroom full of children who were instructed to calmly duck under your desk in the event of a nuclear attack. Yeah, like that was gonna work. And people wonder why I don't believe everything the government says???
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theorist

Postby really? » 24 Sep 2012, 20:53

NinjaPuppy wrote:
really? wrote:To demonstrate the point, an incident if you remember your history occurred called The Bay of Pigs which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Remember both superpowers were on the path to likely nuclear war with each other. Always factor that into the equation.

All you youngins' are just too damned cute sometimes. No, I can't remember my history of these incidents. I do remember them as an actual part of my growing up. I'm from the "Duck and cover" generation. We were taught what to do in the event of an attack from these incidents in school. I was very aware of the tension at the time as it was a daily part of life. A classroom full of children who were instructed to calmly duck under your desk in the event of a nuclear attack. Yeah, like that was gonna work. And people wonder why I don't believe everything the government says???


Good then you understand how adversarial our relationship with the USSR was and that any faking of the tv broadcasts from the Moon would have been exposed pronto by the USSR.

P.S. I'm likely a old as you are.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theorist

Postby SydneyPSIder » 24 Sep 2012, 22:41

Funnily enough it was taught in Cuban schools from Day 1 of the landing that it was a fake -- true story.

naturally the US would say it was sour grapes.

that kind of blows your hypotheses out of the water.

Someone asked an old Russian space engineer many years later if it was possible they went, and he just shook his head.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 26 Sep 2012, 18:52, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theorist

Postby SydneyPSIder » 24 Sep 2012, 22:42

really? wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:
really? wrote:]However, if the conspiracy is the moon landing hoax, then you are well into categorizing a person as part of the tinfoil hat crowd.

I happen to be one of those people who has always suspected that the footage we were shown from the moon was done on a sound stage. Not that I don't believe that we went to the moon but logic says that if I still can't get a decent satellite signal from space with today's technology, and back then you DID need tinfoil to get a TV signal in most areas, there's a chance that there might be some truth to some of the claims.


No chance. If that were a plausible possibility that we did not go, the former Soviet Union would have made it known to the world that we did not go. They were no friends to us during the Cold War. They monitored our technological progress as much as we monitored theirs. To demonstrate the point, an incident if you remember your history occurred called The Bay of Pigs which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Remember both superpowers were on the path to likely nuclear war with each other. Always factor that into the equation.


MAD means nuclear war was unlikely. russians wanted launch pads in cuba tho.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theorist

Postby really? » 25 Sep 2012, 03:58

SydneyPSIder wrote:Funnily enough it was taught in Russian and Cuban schools from Day 1 of the landing that it was a fake -- true story.

And they published stories in the Russian papers saying it was a fake.

naturally the US would say it was sour grapes.

that kind of blows your hypotheses out of the water.

Someone asked an old Russian space engineer many years later if it was possible they went, and he just shook his head.


OMG ! I guess it does after all. :lol:
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theorist

Postby SydneyPSIder » 25 Sep 2012, 04:53

really? wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:Funnily enough it was taught in Cuban schools from Day 1 of the landing that it was a fake -- true story.

naturally the US would say it was sour grapes.

that kind of blows your hypotheses out of the water.

Someone asked an old Russian space engineer many years later if it was possible they went, and he just shook his head.


OMG ! I guess it does after all. :lol:

yes, the fact that the Cubans declared it a fake from Day 1 blows the hypothesis out of the water that they didn't declare it a fake.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 26 Sep 2012, 19:02, edited 2 times in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theorist

Postby SydneyPSIder » 25 Sep 2012, 06:14

too true, unfortunately:

Image
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron