Psychology of a Conspiracy Theorist

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Mountains of evidence seldom get debated as conspiracies. its when mountains of bull# pile up in connection with other things that conspiracy theories crop up as to why, this obvious heap of bull#, is being passed off a standard and acceptable offical stories?

i think you may have misunderstood my mountain of evidence statement...

Creepy said

some people will ignore mountains of evidence if it doesnt fit into thier "theory"...i think they do far more harm to the validity of legitimate conpiracies ,than do people who take the time to look at all possible explanations and not automatically assume its the worse case scenario...

it was not in reference to this study or research...it was meant in a general sense...i was agreeing that more scrutiny and examination is needed,thats all.

but i am curious as to what it is in this research that bothers you? what makes this research bull#?

[Edited on 29-9-2003 by Creepy]

For Me, the Conspiracy is not a reasoned conclusion,

rather a gut instinct kinda thing

an intuition...........a feeling that somethings missing...

some psych might spin that is my 'alienation' showing or a negative reaction to those large institutions i am alienated from, creates an 'illusion' of conspiracy.

life experience has constantly shown me that everyone is hiding something (skeletons in the closet)
any size institution...has ways to 'insulate' members from whatever, and people build defence perimeters to safeguard their self and their positions in these institutions........

ergo, the conspiracy is the normal/logical/true & valid
way to deal with social orgs/society & social structures..

to convince someone otherwise...is to dis-arm that person...and leave them vunerable to mass-mind-control
and other sinister endeavors...the psych dr is part of the conspiracy!!!

quote Queen of Hearts (Alice in Wonderland) OFF....
WITH THEIR HEADS....!!!!

[Edited on 30-9-2003 by Creepy]

ive found another article on this subject...its a good read (a bit dated though...its from 1994)

Belief in Conspiracy Theories
Ted Goertzel

Dialogical conspiracy theories, which include extensive factual evidence and details, are testable and may even be disconfirmed by new evidence. On rare occasions, a conspiracy expert may even become a turncoat, abandoning a belief which is not supported by the preponderance of evidence (Moore, 1990). Many people seem to respond to dialogical conspiracy arguments according to their ideological scripts (Goertzel, 1992). In just the New York Times, for example, reviewers of and commentators on Brock's book about Anita Hill found it to be "sleaze with footnotes" (Lewis, 1993), "a book that sinks beneath its bias" (Quindlen, 1993), "well written, carefully researched and powerful in its logic" (Lehmann-Haupt, 1993) and a book with "opinionated and sloppily presented arguments" which nonetheless "badly damages [Anita Hill's] case" (Wilkinson, 1993). A Washington Post reviewer characterized it as "the first salvo in a long and salutary search for the truth of an affair that is taking place alongside the Kennedy assassination and Watergate as one of the nation's unsolved political mysteries" (Shales, 1993).

Monological conspiracy thinkers do not search for factual evidence to test their theories. Instead, they offer the same hackneyed explanation for every problem - it's the conspiracy of the Jews, the capitalists, the patriarchy, the communists, the medical establishment, or whatever. In these cases, the proof which is offered is not evidence about the specific incident or issue, but the general pattern, e.g., the X conspiracy has been responsible for all of our other problems so it is obvious that they must be responsible for this one as well. For example, Crenshaw (1992) observed that black women have been racially and sexually abused by the white male power structure throughout American history. She then simply assumed that Anita Hill's allegations should be viewed as an example of this pattern, never stopping to examine the factual basis for the particular allegations at hand.

To fully test the model of conspiratorial thinking as part of a monological belief system, we would need time series data to determine how change in belief about one conspiracy effects change in belief in another. On a more qualitative level, we would predict that monological conspiracy thinkers would be more likely to defend their beliefs about a given case by citing evidence about other cases. They would be less likely to rely on evidence which is available to everyone in public sources, and more likely to depend on untestable suppositions and abstract principles. It would be difficult to test these hypotheses with questionnaire data, but they could be tested with content analyses of published literature or with depth interviews.

[Edited on 11-11-2003 by Creepy]

Originally posted by Seekerof
MA....very informative.

Could I ask you to explain further what you meant by:
"* improved education and reasoning skills for school leavers (until let's say the last 20 years, for e.g., in the US) leading to more widespread enquiry"

My reason for asking is not to offend nor anything of that nature.....I am really interested in you further detailing this....it sounded and was a very interesting, if not enlightening, comment or observation. Very thought provoking.

regards
seekerof

Hahaha.This "make a conspiracy thing" is funny as hell.Thats what i got with what i entered in the fields :

In order to understand Globalism you need to realize that everything is controlled by a Bush admin made up of Zionists with help from arabs.
The conspiracy first started during sept 11 in Middle East. They have been responsible for many events throughout history, including world war III.

Today, members of the conspiracy are everywhere. They can be identified by ignorance toward the world.

They want to Terrorist attacks greens and imprison resisters in Israel using plane.

In order to prepare for this, we all must preemptive strikes. Since the media is controlled by Wesley Clark we should get our information from Dick Cheney.

Lol

here is the personal webpage of the author of the article i posted above.....

Ted Goertzel

What They Don't Want You to Know

In order to understand the secret sex-change operations being done to newborns, you need to realize that everything is controlled by a coven made up of transexual doctors with help from the Moral Majority.

The conspiracy first started after Elvis faked his death. They have been responsible for many events throughout history, including JFK's assassination.

Today, members of the conspiracy are everywhere. They can be identified by self-righteous attitudes, peanut butter & banana sandwiches and false eyelashes.

They want to torture immoral non-transexuals and imprison resisters in a dragon's lair using black magick.

In order to prepare for this, we must destroy all suspected victims. Since the media is controlled by Jerry Falwell, we should get our information from the field mice.

Great link, Seekerof!

I became a conspiracy theorist by reading the writings of the conspirators. Confessions are convincing.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
My opinion is that 20 years ago, kids coming out of high school needed to have enquiring minds and a basic understanding of how things work in the world (including such things as their rights, and civic duties, and even basic world geography) in order to graduate.
Not any more.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Awareness must not remain, and the cattle must be kept alseep.

I wrote Future Shock (If you can't currently access the RATS Forum, I'll repost it in Website Related Discussion as soon as Advisor deletes it from RATS) in the first place *because* of this; To show how human history has *always* been filled with a minority of the power-hungriest & greediest people always getting to the "top of the heap" by controlling what information that "the masses" could access. The "status quo" has always been conducting a "War *on* Information...Now we must fight a War *for* Information...Hold them accountable, make them face the consequences of the deliberate spread of ignorance, for witholding enlightenment out of greed.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Im not a conspiracy theorist. Im a Conspiracy exsposer!

...And this is *why* I wrote Future Shock in the first place...Not to "theorize", but to expose.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Except for people that break themselves out of the mould.

As it has been said on ATS before; Free your mind & your @$$ will follow...

CONSPIRACY THEORY AS
"NAIVE DECONSTRUCTIVE HISTORY"
by Floyd Rudmin
April, 2003

Floyd Rudmin is a member of the Psychology Department, University of Troms�, Troms�, Norway.

"Conspiracy theory" is usually used as a pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue. The power of this pejorative is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivations and mental competence of those who advocate the theory. By labeling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory," evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory" means, in effect, "We don't like you, and no one should listen to your explanation."

[Edited on 14-1-2004 by Creepy]

I can't lean on behavioral psychology or anything like that, but I can tell you why, as a reasonably intelligent person with little to complain about, am inclined to believe that certain institutions are untrustworthy.

Home life has changed for a lot of people. There are more single parents and more working parents. There are more children who rather than being raised by parents are being watched by babysitters, and their development is entirely in the hands of the education system. The education system doesn't start until the first 5 years are past, and it's malfunctioning badly anyway. The result is that there is a large number of stupid people, and an even larger number of capable but untrained minds.
Government and industry package their messages, products, and services for presentation to these people, which annoys, disgusts, and alienates brighter people who have not let their schooling interfere with their education.
The result as that many bright, inquistive people percieve society as mindless, and do not feel like they are "in" with society, government, and industry, because none of these percieved entities seem capable of dropping the "baby-talk" and really communicating ideas to a thinking person. The just patronize the ignorant, at least in perception. (as has been pointed out, this is simply "the nature of the beast". It's a phenomenon of individuals interacting, in greater part than it is the broad action of large entities.
Back to my point: Bright people are inclined to feel separated from society, and therefore from the government and industry which cater to that society. There is no trust, and there is a search for other individuals, outside of the system.
The most popular forms are to latch on to an extraordinary person like Kennedy, especially after the fact, when his humanity is completely overshadowed by the legend of his greatness. Then, if something bad happened to that person, with whom the individual identifies, it is no stretch at all to see him as the victim of the outside "society" "government" and "industry".
At the same time, you can't forget that there are often strange coincidences which indicate that conspiracy theories sometimes exist because they are rooted in truth. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me!

Anyway, I think they know more than they say, because they treat me as if I knew nothing. I think the truth is plain and shocking because everything the tell me is obscure and boring. Reverse psychology ensures that when they are so unrelenting in one direction, I will react in the other.

[edit on 2004-7-2 by Teknik]

hers an article from BBC attempting to explain why we need conspiracy theories....dated Sept. 24 2001

Why we need conspiracy theories

According to Psychology Professor Cary Cooper we are trying to stave off fear of random violence and unpredictable death.

"They do that because they can't come to terms with the fact that it could be just a few people," said Professor Cooper, who lectures at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology.

"If you think it's a rogue person or an unsophisticated group you start worrying about your daily life. If this can happen, what sense of security can you have?"

We create alternate realities because we reject the world where a single madman can bring down a president, a reckless driver can snuff out a princess... and a few men with knives can terrorise a country.

The internet helps the theories grow and spread. An estimated 36,000 Princess Diana conspiracy web sites were created after her death.

*delete_-

[edit on 17-8-2006 by Creepy]