Study reveals conspiracy theorists the most sane of all

[Scepcop]

http://www.naturalnews.com/047168_conspiracy_theorists_sanity_propaganda.html

Scientific study reveals conspiracy theorists the most sane of all

(NaturalNews) If you're a conspiracy theorist, then you're crazy, right? That's been the common belief for years, but recent studies prove that just the opposite is true.

Researchers -- psychologists and social scientists, mostly -- in the U.S. and United Kingdom say data indicate that, contrary to those mainstream media stereotypes, "conspiracy theorists" appear to be more sane than people who accept official versions of controversial and contested events.

The most recent study was published in July 2013 by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent in the UK. Entitled "'What about Building 7?' A Social Psychological Study of Online Discussion of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories," the study compared "conspiracist," or pro-conspiracy theory, and "conventionalist," or anti-conspiracy, comments on news websites.

The researchers noted that they were surprised to find that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventional ones.

"Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist," the researchers wrote.

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

So, among people who comment on news articles, those who discount official government accounts of events like the 9/11 attacks and the assassination of John F. Kennedy outnumber believers by more than two-to-one. That means the pro-conspiracy commenters are those who are now expressing what is considered conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters represent a small, beleaguered minority that is often scoffed at and shunned.

Perhaps becoming frustrated that their alleged mainstream viewpoints are no longer considered as such by the majority, those who are anti-conspiracy commenters often showed anger and disgust in their posts.

"The research... showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals," said the study.

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

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

As reported by Veterans Today:

In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist -- a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory -- accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.

A conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory

The study also found that conspiracy believers discuss historical context, like viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11, more than the antis. It also found that conspiracy believers do not like to be labeled as such.

These and other findings are contained in a new book, Conspiracy Theory in America, by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, which was published last year by the University of Texas Press. He explained why people don't like to be labeled as "conspiracy theorists."

"The CIA's campaign to popularize the term 'conspiracy theory' and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time," he said.

He further noted that, essentially, those who use the term as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed and historically accurate conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination.

Or not.

You be the judge.

Sources:

http://www.veteranstoday.com

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

http://conspiracypsychology.com

[Scepcop]

My response to the above article:

Yes conspiracy theorists tend to be more intellectual and freethinking than average conformists. However, it's a double edged sword. A lot of them who follow conspiracy media such as Alex Jones, tend to be addicted to paranoia, which is not healthy. No addiction is healthy, and addiction to paranoia is no exception.

An obsession with conspiracies and paranoia is also unproductive, since these are things you cannot change. Better to focus on things you can change and control, such as your lifestyle or location.

Also, if you listen to Alex Jones, you can tell that he exaggerates a lot. For example, he makes it sound like if you fly on a plane in the US, then the TSA agents will feel your crotch and private parts. I've never experienced that. When I fly in the US, TSA agents do not feel up my body. They just tell you to walk into that body scanner. Alex Jones is probably taking a few isolated extreme examples and making it sound like the norm. That's a typical fallacy.

So a lot of the conspiracy stuff is exaggerated and jumping to conclusions based on speculation or extreme examples.

They also pass around fake quotes that have no source. For example, they quote President Franklin Roosevelt as saying, "In politics, nothing happens by chance. If it happens, you can bet it was planned." There is no verifiable source for this quote by FDR. Yet the conspiracy movement passes it around anyway and assume it is a real quote by FDR. They simply believe whatever they are told by other conspiracy sites.

Some conspiracy people are also contrarians who simply enjoy taking the "alternative" view of everything on every issue, which they do instinctually like a reflex action. They look for conspiracies under every rock, and are BIASED toward an alternative explanation for every little thing, even if it has zero evidence to back it up. They believe every conspiracy theory they hear without evidence.

An example of this is Illuminati researcher Michael Tsarion. He believes that every little fact in history is a lie. He even says that William Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him. There is no evidence for that theory, but he believes it anyway, simply because it challenges the orthodox view of Shakespeare. That's his only reason. Thus he has a bias for believing an alternative story for everything.

Conspiracy theorists also tend to be one-sided, and do not have balanced views. For example, their view of government and law is 100 percent negative. Some, such as Stefan Molyneux and Mark Passio, believe that authority and law are 100 percent unnecessary and that anarchy is the natural state of humankind.

That is totally baseless and nonsensical. Any historian can tell you that anarchy has never been sustainable and has only been a transition stage from one regime to another. (e.g. the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution)

They never give the government credit for anything. Their hatred for government and authority is too extreme and one-sided, even if it has some validity. Here are some examples where government deserves credit:

- Seat belt laws have helped saved lives in car accidents. All statistics prove this. Isn't that a good thing?
- The government passes laws to protect animals from being hunted down to extinction, like the Buffalo and Bison were in the 1800's when they were almost hunted down to extinction.
- The government protects nature and national parks by creating the National Park system. Without it, great National Parks like Yosemite and Yellowstone would be exploited and plundered for profit. Olympic National Park would be desecrated by logging companies. Nature brings us closer to God and divinity. The government has helped keep it that way. (See the 12 hour historical documentary "The National Parks: America's Best Idea" by Ken Burns and Steve Ives)
- In the 1860's, no company wanted to take the risk of building the Transcontinental Railroad. So the US government had to subsidize the project, in order to connect the whole country for commerce and transportation. Without the government's help, the Transcontinental Railroad would never have been built.
- Without laws, some asshole could hit you on the road and then speed away, doing a hit and run. And drunk drivers could drink and drive freely. Is that a good thing?

A balanced person who sees both sides will give government credit for the above. But conspiracy theorists usually never do, nor do they acknowledge any of the above.

The anarchists assume that masses of humans are wise and capable of self-governance. History has shown that that's not true. It's a false assumption. Society has too many assholes, low lifes and sociopaths for lawless anarchy to work.

So yes, many conspiracy theories are true. Power has always corrupted and corruption has always existed in government, so of course there are real conspiracies. But not all conspiracy theories are true, nor are all of them false. Extremes are never accurate. Some conspiracy theories are plausible and supported by evidence and logic, but others aren't.

But becoming addicted and obsessed with conspiracies and paranoia, is not healthy or productive, especially since these are things you can't change. Better to focus on things you can change and control, such as your life and location.

[ProfWag]

"Because I'm good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!"

Seriously though Scepcop, there is the other side to your article as well. Here is a link to the rest of the story by the guy who did the research, along with the last paragraph.
"Anyway, the damage seems to have been done – the PressTV article has been reprinted on a lot of different websites, forums, and social media thanks to its sensationalised headline and smug triumphalism. I’m ambivalent about this – I like that my research is being recognised since I am inherently a media whore, but I’m less happy about the fact that it’s only seeing wide exposure after having been twisted and misinterpreted by an extremely biased article on Iranian state-run media. Still, the last article that we published was met with headlines like “Psychologists prove conspiracy theorists are all crazy!” (there’s no room for nuance on the Internet, is there?) so I suppose it all balances out. I just hope that some people will read the paper itself rather than taking PressTV’s word for what it says."

[ProfWag]

[Scepcop]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[SydneyPSIder]

I also have doubts that William Shakespeare wrote the plays, he was more the bagman taking them to London. He was known principally as a grain merchant, his statue showed him holding a bag of grain for a long time, then they changed it much later to show a quill and paper because of his 'apparent' abilities.

A middle class grain merchant in Stratford would not have known about the niceties of the Italian courts or been able to talk about wider issues in Europe, etc, or have had an education in history, or even the ability to read or write too well!

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question