Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

The inner worlds of conspiracy believers


bushwacked
 Share

Recommended Posts

Goertzel says the new study provides an intriguing but partial look at the inner workings of conspiracy thinking. Such convictions critically depend on what he calls “selective skepticism.” Conspiracy believers are highly doubtful about information from the government or other sources they consider suspect. But, without criticism, believers accept any source that supports their preconceived views, he says.

 

“Arguments advanced by conspiracy theorists tell you more about the believer than about the event,” Goertzel says.

 

Swami’s finding that 9/11 conspiracy believers frequently spoke with likeminded individuals supports the notion that “conspiracy thinkers constitute a community of believers,” remarks historian Robert Goldberg of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. Goldberg has studied various conspiracy theories in the United States.

 

Conspiracy thinkers share an optimistic conviction that they can find “the truth,” spread it to the masses and foster social change, Goldberg asserts.

 

Sounds familiar. :wacko:

 

http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/200...ievers?PageNr=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Your stupidity and close-mindedness never disappoints!!

 

For some reason, you along with many others find an article and post it as truth to prove your opinion or point of view. So according to you, Bruce Bowers of Science News must know everything there is to know about the world.

 

Moving on to the negative connotation associated with the term 'conspiracy theory'. Let's define the two terms:

 

con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)

n. pl. con·spir·a·cies

1. the act of conspiring.

2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

4. Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

 

the·o·ry (th-r, thîr)

n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

After reading the definitions, why does conspiracy theory get so much blind ridicule? Obviously ALL theories must be scrutinized, but something labeled "conspiracy theory" is automatically blindly dismissed without proper discourse. The answer is probably because 'they' have intentionally done so through the media to prohibit real information from being taken seriously.

 

Anything I've said regarding elite bankers (i.e. Federal Reserve) can be backed by factual evidence. It seems that people who put such a heavy negative attachment to the term are the people most easily swayed by propoganda and don't fully seek out evidence. You prefer to read articles on yahoo and allow them to shape your thoughts and ideas. I use critical thinking in conjunction with reading information from ALL angles.

 

Right now I'm reading a book titled "The Coming Battle: The True History of our National Debt". This book was written over 100 years ago, even before the Federal Reserve was created. This book is outlining the very things I profess regularly about money and banking. This book was written when common citizens were better informed and closer to the situation. This book takes it's evidence from congressional documents, newspaper articles and documented letters (from Presidents and other political leaders).

 

I've been blessed with the rare ability to understand real truth and I seek it out. I'm sorry that you are so easily brain-washed. Maybe for once you should get info from another point of view other than the standard one. There are plenty of people much smarter than me who see the truths of the world. Unfortunately herdish behavior is more prevalent and you're a victim of group think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been blessed with the rare ability to understand real truth and I seek it out. I'm sorry that you are so easily brain-washed. Maybe for once you should get info from another point of view other than the standard one. There are plenty of people much smarter than me who see the truths of the world. Unfortunately herdish behavior is more prevalent and you're a victim of group think.

 

 

Coming soon to a place near you.

 

Brentastic's Torpedo of Truth tour.

 

 

Winning!! Duh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your stupidity and close-mindedness never disappoints!!

 

For some reason, you along with many others find an article and post it as truth to prove your opinion or point of view. So according to you, Bruce Bowers of Science News must know everything there is to know about the world.

 

 

That's...that's quite a leap there. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does conspiracy theory get so much blind ridicule?

 

Probably because many of the people who believe in this stuff are quick to call folk who do not believe what they are selling blind and sheep and whatnot. Because its everybody else who is brainwashed, right? Most of the folk who believe in this stuff clearly cause their own problems when it comes to relating to people with a different understanding of things.

 

So according to you, Bruce Bowers of Science News must know everything there is to know about the world.

At least he (like Weigie) has credentials.

Edited by Duchess Jack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably because many of the people who believe in this stuff are quick to call folk who do not believe what they are selling blind and sheep and whatnot. Because its everybody else who is brainwashed, right? Most of the folk who believe in this stuff clearly cause their own problems when it comes to relating to people with a different understanding of things.

 

 

At least he (like Weigie) has credentials.

What you fail to realize is that someone like me who has an open mind to new information - and then looks to validate that new information if it makes sense - has already viewed it, understood and believed it from the angle most widely accepted. Believing in a 'conspiracy theory' is simply taking new evidence/information, verifying that info and making the decision that it seems more plausible than the widely accepted view. When guys like you and bushy argue said viewpoints without any evidence other than name calling and mockery, then you get called sheep etc...

 

If you want to believe something like the tragic event of 9-11 was indeed terroists, that's fine as long as you can critically reason new information that suggests something different. But if you're first response is to call someone like me who believes 9-11 was an inside job, a quack or a conspiracy theorist - then you are in fact a sheep with no ability to think critically or rationally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably because many of the people who believe in this stuff are quick to call folk who do not believe what they are selling blind and sheep and whatnot. Because its everybody else who is brainwashed, right? Most of the folk who believe in this stuff clearly cause their own problems when it comes to relating to people with a different understanding of things.

 

At least he (like Weigie) has credentials.

 

Having credentials in an indoctrinated system holds little value. I have credentials too but they don't mean anything at the end of the day. There are lots of people with credentials but it doesn't make them all knowing. So what's your point? You're only proving that your scope of open-mindedness is narrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you fail to realize is that someone like me who has an open mind to new information - and then looks to validate that new information if it makes sense - has already viewed it, understood and believed it from the angle most widely accepted.

but only you and folk who believe what you believe, right? If somebody doesn't agree with you, they clearly don't have an open mind to new information and they clearly haven't educated themselves. They do not have the "ability" to understand the truth. They are brainwashed and subject to group think. Got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but only you and folk who believe what you believe, right? If somebody doesn't agree with you, they clearly don't have an open mind to new information and they clearly haven't educated themselves. They do not have the "ability" to understand the truth. They are brainwashed and subject to group think. Got it.

Let's approach this from another angle. Which view of mine do you disagree with? We'll start from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having credentials in an indoctrinated system holds little value. I have credentials too but they don't mean anything at the end of the day. There are lots of people with credentials but it doesn't make them all knowing. So what's your point? You're only proving that your scope of open-mindedness is narrow.

You honestly cannot understand my point? Man are you closed to new ideas, subject to Conspirisy Theory Group-Think and whatnot (kind of like the linked article said).

 

I guess what I am saying is that folk with credentials are more likely to know more about their field than folk without credentials. Is this always true? Certainly not, but at the end of the day I rather see a real doctor than a cat that leaned about the body from reading about alien autopsies in the Weekly World News.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's approach this from another angle. Which view of mine do you disagree with? We'll start from there.

To tell you the truth, I cannot say that I agree or disagree with your ideas. I haven't read too much about them. But that is because you make what you say very easy to dismiss when you put yourself above most of the folk here. I see the way you treat people and the way you view yourself as very irrational. It comes across as delutional and makes what you trying to communicate to others seem like a big waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information