The mind of a conspiracy theorist raised on thin air

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

Conspiracy Theorist: (n) An inquisitive person, usually highly educated, who questions official government narratives that are, obviously, inconsistent with the observed scientific evidence.


Example...  In a recent British study, conspiracy theorists were found to be far more intelligent and psychologically healthy than those who were resistant to questioning official government narratives.

[Walter]

Oct 4, 2017 21:37:43 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Conspiracy Theorist: (n) An inquisitive person, usually highly educated, who questions official government narratives that are, obviously, inconsistent with the observed scientific evidence.


Example...  In a recent British study, conspiracy theorists were found to be far more intelligent and psychologically healthy than those who were resistant to questioning official government narratives.

LOL...When I was in grade school. I used to like to create mazes. It was how I doodled when I was bored.
But I had no interest in mazes or in trying to negotiate the mazes of others. It was the challenge of creating the maze itself that interested me.

It strikes me that conspiracy theorists are like that.
They enjoy creating the maze, not solving the maze.

[oujour76]

Oct 5, 2017 11:16:03 GMT -5 Walter said:

LOL...When I was in grade school. I used to like to create mazes. It was how I doodled when I was bored.
But I had no interest in mazes or in trying to negotiate the mazes of others. It was the challenge of creating the maze itself that interested me.

It strikes me that conspiracy theorists are like that.
They enjoy creating the maze, not solving the maze.

[lz2112]

Oct 4, 2017 21:37:43 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Conspiracy Theorist: (n) An inquisitive person, usually highly educated, who questions official government narratives that are, obviously, inconsistent with the observed scientific evidence.


Example...  In a recent British study, conspiracy theorists were found to be far more intelligent and psychologically healthy than those who were resistant to questioning official government narratives.

LOL. Typical Willie, creates a definition to make himself feel superior, then cites a non existent study to confirm his delusions of grandeur.

In this article, it links to real study that concludes educated people are less likely to by into conspiracy nonsense.

digest.bps.org.uk/2017/04/05/why-more-highly-educated-people-are-less-into-conspiracy-theories/

Why more highly educated people are less into conspiracy theories

By Christian Jarrett

In this era of “fake news” and rising populism, encountering conspiracy theories is becoming a daily phenomenon. Some people usually shrug them off – they find them too simplistic, biased or far-fetched – but others are taken in. And if a person believes one kind of conspiracy theory, they usually believe others.

Psychologists are very interested in why some people are more inclined to believe in conspiracy theories, especially since the consequences can be harmful: for example, by avoiding getting their kids vaccinated, believers in vaccination conspiracies can harm wider public health; in other cases, a belief in a conspiracy against one’s own ethnic or religious group can foment radicalism.

One of the main differences between conspiracy believers and nonbelievers that’s cropped up in multiple studies is that nonbelievers tend to be more highly educated. For a new study in Applied Cognitive Psychology, Jan-Willem Van Prooijen at VU Amsterdam has conducted two large surveys to try to dig into just what it is about being more educated that seems to inoculate against belief in conspiracy.

For the first survey, Van Prooijen recruited over 4000 readers of a popular science journal in the Netherlands, with an average age of 32. He asked them about their formal education level and their belief in various well-known conspiracy theories, such as that the moon landings were hoax; he tested their feelings of powerlessness; their subjective sense of their social class (they located their position on a social ladder); and their belief in simple solutions, such as that “most problems in society are easy to solve”.

The more highly educated a participant, the less likely they were to endorse the conspiracy theories. Importantly, several of the other measures were linked to education and contributed to the association between education and less belief in conspiracy: feeling less powerlessness (or more in control), feelings of higher social status, and being sceptical of simple solutions.

A second survey was similar, but this time Van Prooijen quizzed nearly 1000 participants, average age 50, selected to be representative of the wider Dutch population. Also, there were two phases: for the first, participants answered questions about their education level; feelings of power; subjective social class; belief in simple solutions; and they took some basic tests of their analytical thinking skills. Then two weeks later, the participants rated their belief in various conspiracy theories.

Once again, more education was associated with less belief in conspiracy theories, and this seemed to be explained in part by more educated participants feeling more in control, having less belief in simple solutions, and having stronger analytical skills. Subjective social class wasn’t relevant in this survey.

Taken together, Van Prooijen said the results suggest that “the relationship between education and belief in conspiracy theories cannot be reduced to a single psychological mechanism but is the product of the complex interplay of multiple psychological processes.”

The nature of his study means we can’t infer that education or the related factors he measured actually cause less belief in conspiracies. But it makes theoretical sense that they might be involved: for example, more education usually increases people’s sense of control over their lives (though there are exceptions, for instance among people from marginalized groups), while it is feelings of powerlessness that is one of the things that often attracts people to conspiracy theories.

Importantly, Van Prooijen said his findings help make sense of why education can contribute to “a less paranoid society” even when conspiracy theories are not explicitly challenged. “By teaching children analytic thinking skills along with the insight that societal problems often have no simple solutions, by stimulating a sense of control, and by promoting a sense that one is a valued member of society, education is likely to install the mental tools that are needed to approach far-fetched conspiracy theories with a healthy dose of skepticism.”

[Deleted]

    How did the absurdly over-used term "conspiracy theorist" enter the American lexicon?

    It was promoted in the 1960s by CIA Director Allen Dulles and his U.S. Propaganda Chief Cord Meyer to undermine Warren Commission debunkers like New Orleans DA Jim Garrison and attorney Mark Lane.

The Term “Conspiracy Theory” Was Invented by the CIA in 1967 in Order to Attack Investigators of Dulles's Ludicrous Warren Commission Report
]

          "...the term “conspiracy theory” entered the American lexicon of political speech to deflect criticism of the Allen Dulles led Warren Commission and traces it back to a CIA propaganda campaign to discredit doubters of the commission’s report. "


www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Theory-America-Discovering/dp/0292757697/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471971025&sr=1-1&keywords=Conspiracy+Theory+in+America

[Deleted]

According To Studies at the University of Kent, "Conspiracy Theorists" Are The Most Sane People



New research shows that people are more likely to believe conspiracy theories about 9/11 than the official story. Michael Wood and Karen Douglas are academics based at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom who have just published a study on conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.

Their research involved the analysis of comments left by users across a spectrum of different news outlets. The intention of their study was to draw empirically differences between “conspiracy theorists”, who dispute the official version of 9/11 and “conventionalists” who accept the government story in its totality. The study reached some fairly surprising conclusions which are sure to be seen as flying in the face of received wisdom. The first surprising find of the study is that it is now more likely for online commentators to dispute the veracity of the official story than it is to accept it blindly.

 Wood and Douglas found that of 2174 that they analyzed for the study, 1459 were coded as written by conspiracy theorists and only 715 were written by conventionalists. The researchers also discovered that there was a world of difference in the personal approach of conspiracy theorists and conventionalists.

They found that the conventionalists were far more hostile in their language and showed anger, disgust, and contempt in their posts more frequently than their conspiracy theorist counterparts. They were also far more likely to resort to personal insults in the course of their conversation. In addition to this, the researchers found that conventionalists clung far more dogmatically to the official story and tended to refuse to admit that there may be contradictions of problems inherent within the narrative.  (e.g., Walter, Harry, Daleko, and LZ)

This is in contrast to the conspiracy theorists who were considerably more malleable in their approach and more likely to be receptive to the views of the others. Wood and Douglas wrote that the conspiracy theorists did not zealously attempt to prove the truth of their ‘theory’ but rather attempted to poke holes in the official version of the story.

The researchers also suggested that the conspiracy theorists were more likely to be aware of the historical context of the attacks than conventionalists and tended to make more frequent references to other events such as the assassination of JFK.

Interestingly, the study also found that conspiracy theorists do not like to be referred to as such. This finding was replicated by Lance deHaven-Smith, the author of Conspiracy Theories in America, who has suggested that there is a good reason for conspiracy theorists to reject the label.

According to deHaven-Smith, the use of term ‘conspiracy theorist’ entered popular parlance because of the CIA campaign which intended to “make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility”. DeHaven Smith writes that this may be one of the most successful propaganda campaigns of all time. Related Articles READ MORE: www.disclose.tv/news/According_To_Studies_Conspiracy_Theorists_Are_The_Most_Sane_People/111402

[Walter]

Oct 5, 2017 11:42:41 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Oct 5, 2017 11:16:03 GMT -5 Walter said:

LOL...When I was in grade school. I used to like to create mazes. It was how I doodled when I was bored.
But I had no interest in mazes or in trying to negotiate the mazes of others. It was the challenge of creating the maze itself that interested me.

It strikes me that conspiracy theorists are like that.
They enjoy creating the maze, not solving the maze.

Perfect!

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2017 14:24:06 GMT -5 Walter said:

Oct 5, 2017 11:42:41 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Perfect!

Perfect nonsense, Walt.

The visible "dots" that I have posted here for you and Harry to connect are confirmed scientific facts that directly contradict the official U.S. government/CIA false narratives about JFK's murder and the 9/11 false flag attacks blamed on CIA asset "Osama Bin Laden."

Do you two ostriches also still deny the validity of Newton's Laws of Motion?


.jpg"]

[daleko]

Oct 5, 2017 17:04:41 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Do you two ostriches also still deny the validity of Newton's Laws of Motion?
quote]

YOU ALWAYS IGNORE THE RESISTENCE PART OF YOUR FALSE NARRATIVE.

[daleko]

Oct 5, 2017 11:16:03 GMT -5 Walter said:

Oct 4, 2017 21:37:43 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Conspiracy Theorist: (n) An inquisitive person, usually highly educated, who questions official government narratives that are, obviously, inconsistent with the observed scientific evidence.


Example...  In a recent British study, conspiracy theorists were found to be far more intelligent and psychologically healthy than those who were resistant to questioning official government narratives.

LOL...When I was in grade school. I used to like to create mazes. It was how I doodled when I was bored.
But I had no interest in mazes or in trying to negotiate the mazes of others. It was the challenge of creating the maze itself that interested me.

It strikes me that conspiracy theorists are like that.
They enjoy creating the maze, not solving the maze.

Hmmmmmmmmm, explains your architectural design leanings?

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2017 11:16:03 GMT -5 Walter said:

Oct 4, 2017 21:37:43 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Conspiracy Theorist: (n) An inquisitive person, usually highly educated, who questions official government narratives that are, obviously, inconsistent with the observed scientific evidence.


Example...  In a recent British study, conspiracy theorists were found to be far more intelligent and psychologically healthy than those who were resistant to questioning official government narratives.

LOL...When I was in grade school. I used to like to create mazes. It was how I doodled when I was bored.
But I had no interest in mazes or in trying to negotiate the mazes of others. It was the challenge of creating the maze itself that interested me.

It strikes me that conspiracy theorists are like that.
They enjoy creating the maze, not solving the maze.

Walt,


    Firstly, "conspiracy theorists" are not a monolithic class of people.  Some are professors at places like MIT and Berkeley, and some are loons like Alex Jones.

    Secondly, I can't think of a less accurate description of myself as a "conspiracy theorist" than the one you just posted.  I'm the diametric opposite.

    I have always had a relentless compulsion to solve complex theoretical problems.  I stayed up half the night one night in college solving a calculus problem.

   My professor, and old German guy named Werner, said, "Yes, your solution is correct, but we're not going to study this methodology until the next semester.

 (He wanted me to major in math.)

[Walter]

Oct 6, 2017 20:17:26 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Oct 5, 2017 11:16:03 GMT -5 Walter said:

LOL...When I was in grade school. I used to like to create mazes. It was how I doodled when I was bored.
But I had no interest in mazes or in trying to negotiate the mazes of others. It was the challenge of creating the maze itself that interested me.

It strikes me that conspiracy theorists are like that.
They enjoy creating the maze, not solving the maze.

Walt,


    Firstly, "conspiracy theorists" are not a monolithic class of people.  Some are professors at places like MIT and Berkeley, and some are loons like Alex Jones.

    Secondly, I can't think of a less accurate description of myself as a "conspiracy theorist" than the one you just posted.  I'm the diametric opposite.

    I have always had a relentless compulsion to solve complex theoretical problems.  I stayed up half the night one night in college solving a calculus problem.

   My professor, and old German guy named Werner, said, "Yes, your solution is correct, but we're not going to study this methodology until the next semester.

 (He wanted me to major in math.)

Nobody is saying that a conspiracy theorist isn't intelligent.
What I am pointing out is that you are more interested in the maze than the solution to the maze. You like the maze, not the solution to the maze.
Had you had a firmer grasp of calculus, you would not have needed an all nighter to figure it out.
That is a nod to your intellectual process, but it doesnt mean you understood the math. Similarly, you enjoyed a more complicated process than the simpler solution.
With your conspiracy stuff, you ignore simpler and more obvious solutions and pull an all nighter trying to find a more convoluted solution.
That isn't a good way to approach things.
To use a guitar analogy, one can concoct a complicated fingering that is more difficult than just moving one finger down one fret to make the same chord. Both work, but one isn't about proving how great you are at fretting a chord. In the end, nobody cares but you.

[oujour76]

Oct 6, 2017 23:03:35 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nobody is saying that a conspiracy theorist isn't intelligent.
What I am pointing out is that you are more interested in the maze than the solution to the maze. You like the maze, not the solution to the maze.
Had you had a firmer grasp of calculus, you would not have needed an all nighter to figure it out.
That is a nod to your intellectual process, but it doesnt mean you understood the math. Similarly, you enjoyed a more complicated process than the simpler solution.
With your conspiracy stuff, you ignore simpler and more obvious solutions and pull an all nighter trying to find a more convoluted solution.
That isn't a good way to approach things.
To use a guitar analogy, one can concoct a complicated fingering that is more difficult than just moving one finger down one fret to make the same chord. Both work, but one isn't about proving how great you are at fretting a chord. In the end, nobody cares but you.

You got it. In the end it's all about....

[Deleted]

Much like Mutt. Both a have a pathological impulsiveness to constantly prove that they're much smarter and more knowledgeable than everybody else here. Both are condescending neutered bulls in a china shop.