A psychological study of conspiracy theorists
 

These scientist may have more knowledge than I have, I still say that these conspiracy theorists are Insane not me.

"most sane of all" !?

http://www.naturalnews.com/047168_co...ropaganda.html

Markus

Id recommend reading the original scientific research, rather than the spin put on it by a conspiracy-theory website. Or at least read the abstract, which needless to say doesn't say anything about conspiracy theorists being "the most sane of all".

Indeed. If you read the original paper instead of someone's distortion, or wishful take on it you get a whole different vibe of what the authors are trying to say.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journ...013.00409/full

Quote:

We argue that in fact, anomaly hunting, or a fixation on errant data, is a manifestation of the way conspiracism is structured as a worldview. In general, conspiracy belief is not based around specific theories of how events transpire, though these may exist as well. Instead, conspiracism is rooted in several higher-order beliefs such as an abiding mistrust of authority, the conviction that nothing is quite as it seems, and the belief that most of what we are told is a lie. Apparent anomalies in official accounts seem to support this, even if they do not point to a specific, well-defined alternative. For many conspiracists, there are two worlds: one real and (mostly) unseen, the other a sinister illusion meant to cover up the truth; and evidence against the latter is evidence for the former.

I think it is good advice to not trust anyone, and to the very least official government declarations, or secret services.

"A psychological study of conspiracy theorists" ?

How about:

"A clinical study of secret service low-lifers and their urge to describe anyone coming near the truth as a conspiracy theorist".



Be it as it may, you will find the most clinical sick and paranoid people in typical organisations like secret services, worldwide.
According to the article, this might be a compliment.
:O:

Ipso Facto

So why bother then?

MY BRAIN HURTS!

I wish I had a one :shifty:

http://larkable.com/wp-content/uploa...2/morpheus.png

What if I told you that the study of conspiracy theorists was a conspiracy theory?

Is that what they told you to say?

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...ing_Squint.jpg

Is that what they told you to reply? :hmmm:

Sorry for this late reply.

Yes it's always better to read an original survey/study of something, then read it through a news paper.

I found it on FB, on a page and when I read the story I had only one thing in my mind post it here on Subsim, so you could read it your self.

I have not clue of what kind of news paper this Natural news is.

There are some phrase in the article that is however true

"those who do not believe in the conspiracies were not just hostile but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well"

And that is true, have seen that phenomena on some Danish and Swedish Forums.

Have and additional question:
To you how know this news paper-do you read an article, when presented, like in this thread, or do you say-that's a weird/conspiracy-like-news paper I'm not going to read it.

Markus

There was a time when you could quickly identify psuedoscience and quackery web sites quite easily. Text of an annoying color not found in nature on a black background used to be a dead-giveaway. Flashing headlines and animated UFO gifs also used to be a common trait of sites promoting all manner of crack pottery. They've gotten slicker in recent years. You pretty much need to learn to develop your own internal BS detector.

However, you can tell a lot by the company a website keeps. Any site that relies heavily on ads in the margins promoting mystics, instant cancer cures, crystals, and escape from Stalag FEMA manuals should be sending up red flags faster than Pyongyang.

If you don't know, there is probably a reason. :hmmm:

Don't you try reasoning with me buddy, I ain't gonna fall for your government trained techniques! :nope: