Scientific Study Reveals Conspiracy Theorists The Most Sane Of All!

a reply to: Astyanax

I prefer to look at the numbers and am skeptical of any conclusions by special interests.

I will not ignore the numbers I can see.
I am glad this thread got me to look them up.

a reply to: freeenergymobile

So: I'm obliged to repeat myself in more, shall we say, moderate terms.

If you would trouble to read the actual study on which you are pronouncing an opinion, you would discover that the numbers you have chosen to cling to — in much the same fashion as the proverbial drowning man clings to a straw — refer in fact the number of comments selected for analysis, not the number of comments actually posted. In the latter case, the number of 'conspiracist' posts is no higher than the number of 'conventionalist' posts. The reasons why this selection was performed are made explicit in the paper.

I could quote the relevant passages here, but why bother? You wouldn't read them anyway.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: freeenergymobile

So: I'm obliged to repeat myself in more, shall we say, moderate terms.

If you would trouble to read the actual study on which you are pronouncing an opinion, you would discover that the numbers you have chosen to cling to — in much the same fashion as the proverbial drowning man clings to a straw — refer in fact the number of comments selected for analysis, not the number of comments actually posted. In the latter case, the number of 'conspiracist' posts is no higher than the number of 'conventionalist' posts. The reasons why this selection was performed are made explicit in the paper.

I could quote the relevant passages here, but why bother? You wouldn't read them anyway.

Could you please quote the relevant passages?

OG

a reply to: OrionsGem

Could you please quote the relevant passages?

The present study consists of an examination of a large number of conspiracy theory-related persuasive comments on news stories

We systematically coded and analyzed conspiracist and conventionalist persuasive comments from four major news websites on articles relating to 9/11 from the period of July 1st through December 31st, 2011, encompassing the months surrounding the tenth anniversary of the attacks.

For each article that resulted from these searches, the public comment sections were read, and from these, we extracted verbatim all relevant comments regarding the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Specifically, since only persuasive comments were of interest, only comments containing original content that could be considered persuasive, or written with the intent to persuade, were extracted.

To operationalize this constraint we adhered to four criteria.

1. The comment must not consist solely of insults, ridicule, or threats (e.g., “u stupid sheeple need 2 wake up lol,” “Let me know what your home address is, and we can have a frank “discussion” about your idiotic conspiracy theories”). This criterion was adopted because insults on their own are not persuasive, and while insults may be relevant to the hostility and stigma variables, they are irrelevant to the majority of the analyses we wished to conduct.
   
   
2. The comment must not consist solely of “meta” discussion (e.g., “I see the government disinfo machine is working overtime with all the shills posting here,” “can't believe CNN is letting these tinfoil hat nutjobs hijack a story about the 9/11 memorial”). As with insults, “meta” comments do not make persuasive arguments, and are in fact about entirely different subject matter—they are concerned with the minutia of discussion rather than with the conspiracy theories and conventional explanations in question.
   
   
3. The comment must not consist solely of a link to an external website, YouTube video, or similar, or a link with minimal description that adds no meaningful content...
   
   
4. The comment must not be copied verbatim from an external source...

Satisfied?

This thread really got big. I might read some more of it when I'm not so tired. Sanity is overrated. As is common sense. The massive amount of groupthink just on this forum is for me proof of that.

Socrates's idea that reality is unavailable to those who use their senses is what puts him at odds with the common man, and with common sense.

source: en.wikipedia.org...

If you're popular you're doing it wrong.

a reply to: Astyanax

I still dont understand, what were you trying to convey?

OG

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: freeenergymobile

So: I'm obliged to repeat myself in more, shall we say, moderate terms.

If you would trouble to read the actual study on which you are pronouncing an opinion, you would discover that the numbers you have chosen to cling to — in much the same fashion as the proverbial drowning man clings to a straw — refer in fact the number of comments selected for analysis, not the number of comments actually posted. In the latter case, the number of 'conspiracist' posts is no higher than the number of 'conventionalist' posts. The reasons why this selection was performed are made explicit in the paper.

I could quote the relevant passages here, but why bother? You wouldn't read them anyway.

Very keen observation. Pointed this out early but no one caught on. Can't be choosy unless you're picking jiff

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: rebelv
a reply to: Grimpachi

I have to admit somebody posted at least three links.
I read two of them and it did seem to me that the two
different articles (one by a .gov) sight had some
inconsistencies in the conclusions.

I myself wasn't agreeing with the conclusions but
with some of the data reported and my experiences.

Rebel 5

It would serve you well to read this entire thread, especially my responses. Report back now ya hear?

OG

lol, Okay.

Rebel 5

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: rebelv

I am glad to hear you looked into it further than 90% of the posters here. Yousaw there was a different take on the study I advise looking at the study for yourself.

Usually when an article says something about a study that I find mildly interesting I like to see the study as well sometimes the jargon in the studies can be a bit confusing but since lightning fast internet has been around that whole process has become much easier.lol After All coming to ones own conclusions when information is available is so much better than having someone tell you what it should be.

Thanks. I usually like to read through or at least scan and compare
different studies of the same nature, although admittedly usually don't
have enough time to read long studies that go on for a hundreds pages
or something. Although I will scan through them.

Rebel 5

I can't find the post now but I think there was a post in this thread where someone said that the insane conspiracy theorist believes that there is a vast conspiracy involving pretty much all of one's outer world. This is what interests me the most about this subject. That kind of thinking definitely seems to be a spiritual thing. Paranoia and cynicism seem to also to a large extent be a spiritual thing. Actually I myself have been thinking that emotional intelligence, which basically is the opposite of paranoia and cynicism, is inversely related to spiritual enlightenment. As I said before, I think sanity is overrated. To be sane is to conform to society's definition of sane, that is self-explanatory. By dividing the world into sane vs insane you are limiting yourself and your truth seeking. If the humans and their behavior are seen as being divided into sane and insane, then it is self-explanatory that he who doesn't fear treading into the area labelled as insane is simply more open-minded, has a bigger horizon. A real truth seeker shouldn't care about being viewed as sane or insane.

Insane is usually not called insane though. It is usually vastly more subtle than that, or it takes on other forms of expression. Usually it's something like "wrong", "false", "you have a horrible attitude", "don't be so pessimistic", "you lack empathy", "it's common sense that...", "I don't care about your argument", "I know for certain" among many other expressions.

This thread is a good example of how closed-minded people who claim to be truth seekers really can be:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's another example. Groupthink is usually extremely subtle. It can be something as common as a little bit of "optimism":

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some degree of sanity or groupthink is necessary to survive. It's just that if you have the mind of a trail blazer, you are at the boundary of what is sane enough to survive. You are holding on to a thread of sanity just to get by, as opposed to the emotionally intelligent who has both feet steadily planted on firm ground.



Compare what Alex Jones says about Magellan to something like schizophrenia:

and when they got back there was only like eleven people alive of the two hundred and something crew and the entire ship was rotting down to the waterline.

You don't have to do DNA research to understand why creativity and madness are two sides of the same coin, you just have to examine the definitions of those concepts.

There's a reason why in the psych field one of the number one disorders for the conspiracy theorist is schizophrenia. If that makes you the most sane person in the world then you've got issues.

This article and study are recockulous. Science has shown time and time again the repeated paranoid behavior in CT's are tied to schizophrenics. Need more proof? click me for a real study.

a reply to: Jenisiz

The study linked in the op is real as well. You should not generalize and stereotype conspiracy theorists as you just did in your post.


OG

originally posted by: Jenisiz
There's a reason why in the psych field one of the number one disorders for the conspiracy theorist is schizophrenia. If that makes you the most sane person in the world then you've got issues.

This article and study are recockulous. Science has shown time and time again the repeated paranoid behavior in CT's are tied to schizophrenics. Need more proof? click me for a real study.

Sorry, but I have been searching for the truth for around 15 years. I have never once heard voices in my head.

Ive been researching establishment paedophilia for around 3 to 4 years, and guess what, it turned out the "theories" were true. Elm guest house, Bryn Estyn, the scandal involving Lambeth and Islington care homes, its all true.
Its been covered up since the late 70's early 80's at least.

I would also like to add that given the repeated lies of politicians on all sides, the 20 years of covering up both the Hillsborough disaster and also the murder of Steven Lawrence, that you would have to be a complete and utter moron to believe what the media tells us. And I mean completely f**king stupid beyond hope.

Given the choice of being a bit left field or a total idiot, Ill take "insanity" every time.
Being ridiculed for telling the truth is something I take pride in. Its those doing the ridiculing I feel sorry for.

As for paranoia, why do you think the news is full of stories telling us to be scared?
Fear the paedophiles on every street, fear ze evil terrorists, fear Ebola, be scared be scared be scared.
And Im paranoid?
Really?

If I was scared I certainly wouldnt be posting on this site, or any other for that matter.
And I certainly wouldnt be telling others about the lies and taking abuse for it.
I lost my fear the moment I realised fear was the biggest weapon of the establishment to control the ignorant masses.
Paranoid? No.
Scared? No.
Schizophrenic? Not a chance.
Worried for the future of my children? Without a doubt.

a reply to: OneManArmy


I agree with your post 100%

a reply to: OrionsGem

Still, many of us can't correctly pronounce a certain three-letter word.

"Baa."

a reply to: OneManArmy

Are you convinced that a lot of people, including some very powerful and influential ones, are active paedophiles, and that many of them are in a position to prosecute their crimes, as well as to cover them up and protect their associates?

Then you are perfectly rational, if perhaps a little obsessed with the subject — though, of course, you may have very good reasons for that.

Or are you convinced that a shadowy, world-ruling cabal habitually indulges in paedophilia for Satanic or magical reasons, or as an initiation ritual of some kind, or simply because it can? That the discovery of this or that high-ranking paedophile is evidence for the aforesaid conviction? And that recent celebrity paedophile outings — Jimmy Saville and the like — are some kind of red herring or 'false flag' to distract attention from the real evildoers?

The you are a conspiracy theorist.

originally posted by: Jenisiz
There's a reason why in the psych field one of the number one disorders for the conspiracy theorist is schizophrenia. If that makes you the most sane person in the world then you've got issues.

This article and study are recockulous. Science has shown time and time again the repeated paranoid behavior in CT's are tied to schizophrenics. Need more proof? click me for a real study.

I honestly feel sorry for people without mental disorder or illness. They have no idea what they're missing.

a reply to: introspectionist

I think sanity is overrated. To be sane is to conform to society's definition of sane, that is self-explanatory. By dividing the world into sane vs insane you are limiting yourself and your truth seeking.

The trouble is, being insane is so stressful. You can't make people understand you. Half the time you can't even understand yourself. You can't come to a decision most of the time, and when you do it never seems to work out the way you expected. You can't get anything done. No-one will hire you. You can't get laid. You have trouble sleeping. Ordinary, day-to-day tasks overwhelm you. You feel oppressed, persecuted, exhausted all the time, except when you're elated, overconfident and buzzing with energy, and those are the times you do the most damage.

Seems a high price to pay for seeking the truth, but perhaps it might be worth it if the truth was actually found. Do you know any insane person who found the truth? And if so, how did it affect them?