Superstitious? A conspiracy theorist? That's because you are insecure!

Ok, this "discovery" is just misinformation. First of all, science has always been looking to discredit things like Religion, spiritual-things, and things within the conspiracy world.

Am I superstitious? That would depend on your definition of what superstitious means. If you mean do I believe in spirits and ghosts? Maybe. AM I insecure? Not really. Does that mean I have no insecurties? Not as much as the people who did this research.

Science is looking for ways to discredit beliefs they think are inferior. If it weren't for conspiracy theorists Nixon would have been left untouched and Bush would have been left untouched as well. Conspiracy theories are necessary and they do exist and I don't think I'm better than other people because I'm a conspiracy theorist.

I think that people who think that conspiracy theorists are insecure are very rude and they're probably insecure themselves putting them over us.

What is or isn't there? Who is the judge of that?

It is good to see there is finally a credible study on the problem many of the ATS users suffer from. That is not to say absolutely no conspiracy theories exist, but it seems many, especially the ones thought up on this site, are just plain silly.

Originally posted by ziggystar60
reply to post by The time lord

 

I am not sure I understand what you mean. (It may be because of language barrier, I am norwegian.) Can you elaborate a little?

What I am trying to say is that scientists are purposely denying an not looking into supernatural causes that they can not prove straight away in our limited advances. They deny it like once man did of the earth being round but the world came to know it was. Does not mean ancient societies did not know the world was round like the Egyptians did, but sometimes knowledge is lost through time and found again. The scientists are denying the road to a higher knowledge, sometimes people's experiences are real but they feel theatened by knowing there is a God or something more out there.

As for the Ambulance logo, it has a snake on it, conspiracy theorists could call it the Reptillian Code of their hidden agenda. Denying our self awareness of Matrix we are in.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by The time lord]

It's a conspiracy!
to make conspiracy theorists feel silly

Originally posted by ziggystar60
Do we see conspiracies where there really is none, just because we feel a lack of control in our lives?

I believe so, and I believe I can explain why, too.

Most people who don't get what they want will blame someone else for it. This is human nature and although it isn't a very good or helpful habit, it's an understandable one. We've all done it, even if only as children.

Now think how it is with the perennially unsuccessful, those for whom nothing ever seems to go right, however hard they try. Except for a tiny minority who are genuinely the victims of bad luck, such folk are obviously doing something wrong. Lightning does sometimes strike twice, and bad luck too, but neither bad luck nor lightning are famed for striking over and over again in the same place. Thus the cause of recurrent failure must lie within the one who fails - some poorly-developed faculty, some quirk of personality (shortness of temper, a mental illness of some kind, a deficiency of intelligence) that robs him or her of success time and time again, sometimes snatching defeat out of the very jaws of victory.

Such people, unable or unwilling to look within themselves for the cause of their ill fortune, are all too likely to blame other people - or reptilian aliens, or evil spirits, or God Himself - for it instead.

Such are the conspiracy theorists.

Then there are others, who are not in truth failures, but feel that they have been denied their just deserts in life. The manager who was passed over for department head, the singer who makes a reasonable living on the club circuit but can't get anyone to buy her records. These people, who work within the system but cannot get the system to work for them, are quite liable to believe that the corporate world is run by a cabal of Masons and Jews, or that you can't get a break in the music industry without performing sexual favours for record company bosses.

Such, also, are conspiracy theorists.

I spoke on the telephone this morning to a friend in Bombay (they call it Mumbai these days). My friend is a senior advertising man with a reputation in the industry. He is also a Muslim. You wouldn't call him a loser by any means, but this morning, with his city torn apart by murderous acts of terror, conflicting reports flying around and everyone in a state of fear and confusion, this is what he told me: 'Remember, the Indian elections are due soon, and after this, the BJP (a right-wing Hindu party) will be a shoo-in.'

He's suggesting, in other words, that Hindu nationalists are behind these attacks under a false Jihadi flag, using them to raise anti-Muslim feeling and ensure the election of the Hindu party. My friend's normally secure economic and social position cannot insure him against the fear and sense of helplessness he feels at this time of crisis and threat, so he embraces an explanation that will help absolve his co-religionists (and by extension, himself) of blame for these vicious attacks.

My friend is, for the moment, a conspiracy theorist.

After 9/11, the whole world was riven by feelings of terror and helplessness, but none more so than pro-Western Arabs. I have a few friends of this kind, and it was from them that I heard the first 9/11 conspiracy theories. They tended to blame Israel or the CIA, or both, but that isn't my point: my point is that the vast corpus of 9/11 conspiracy theories is eminently the result of so many people's feelings of helplessness on that occasion.

9/11 turned more Westerners into conspiracy theorists than any other event of recent memory.

The circumstantial evidence is all in favour of the conclusion: conspiracy theories are the opiate of the helpless.

I love it how everything that goes against faith is labeled as dis-info . . . a scientist said it, well . . . it must be anti-religious sentiment.

Unfortunately, while this study may be recent, it is based on a well established and observable meme. One that has been essential to human survival and adaptation. Their findings only go to support long held psychological beliefs.

While the baseball player looking for a "cause" to his slump/streak is a great example . . . let's look at it from a developmental p.o.v.

If one is dropped in unfamiliar wilderness, it's unavoidable that s/he will start to sense fear and trepidation. The only way to overcome this "dis-ease"/stress is to gain control over said environment. So . . . one has to establish landmarks, find food sources, shelter . . . if humans didn't have the drive to do this and the higher ablity to remember/recognize patterns . . . we would have died out. If many people are getting sick and dying in a village and the cause is unknown . . . fear and superstition will engulf the community. Once someone points out that only the villagers that are eating the "ceremonial" mushrooms are getting sick and dying and those people stop eating them (thus stopping the sickness), the "mystery" is put to bed. No longer are people blaming the "gods" or "demons" for their plight.

Religion is a result of this same drive . . . it gives people comfort in a confusing world . . . it give people a "plan" for their life . . . it gives a path to walk down. Psychologically, we are scared/fearful of the unknown/wilderness . . . religion removes us from the wilderness.

If you're a person of faith . . . be faithful (believing without evidence). If you don't like the meme's that are inherent in all human psyche's . . . . blame your creator!

I have always said the quote... i want to take credit for it but who knows how many brilliant people before my time have mentioned something amongst the lines




"i do not do luck, i do skill."


As far as those tests, of images and non-images... all our brains work differently, and someone with a creative mind thinking that bush is a godsend might end up depicting pictures from all non-images.


Its silly to label thoughts and theories and "conspiracy theories" as well... because it is this young generation that is brought to these theories as relevant and data-based "ideas" rather than elders that are raised on viewing them as "conspiracy theories".

I'm fairly new here and just want to say it's gratifying to see some reasonable balanced comments among the too often extreme rushes to judgement and histrionics that one becomes used to on sites of this nature.

I think anyone who has met different types of people in a variety of situations come to realize that the more dissatisfied or deprived people are, the more they gravitate towards ready-made explanations that exonerate them or their group.

I know it sounds harsh, but saying you're a victim comes easier than saying you're a failure.

Science, the media, religions, politicians, willfully or not, often generate self-servingly incomplete and skewed data or straight disinformation. It's almost a full-time job catching the misinformations and erroneous thinking and try to correct it.

That's why I now find myself spending something like an hour a day here, and it's comforting to see there are like-minded people also seeking truth and maybe a little wisdom for it's own sake, with no other agenda.


Mike F

Originally posted by Astyanax
The circumstantial evidence is all in favour of the conclusion: conspiracy theories are the opiate of the helpless.

What if conspiracies turn out to be true?

Such was the case with the NSA and Area 51. Most people did not believe they existed at one time.

Also, I can see how your theory holds up in the case of those who believe in the NWO, Illuminati, Freemasons, etc.

But how does a person feel helpless if they believe aliens are visiting the Earth, for example?

[edit on 30-11-2008 by GeeGee]

reply to post by GeeGee

What if conspiracies turn out to be true?

Nothing. We're talking about conspiracy theories, not real conspiracies.

Nobody would deny that there are conspiracies in the world. But conspiracy theories are different from trustworthy evidences of conspiracy. They have nothing to do with real conspiracies in the real world. They are fantasies that exist for the psychological benefit of those who cling to them.

How to tell the difference between a conspiracy theory and real evidence of conspiracy? The Wikipedia article on conspiracy theories offers a checklist of identifying factors.

• Occam's razor - does the alternative story explain more of the evidence than the mainstream story, or is it just a more complicated and therefore less useful explanation of the same evidence?
  
• Logic - Do the proofs offered follow the rules of logic, or do they employ Fallacies of logic?
  
• Methodology - are the proofs offered for the argument well constructed, i.e., using sound methodology? Is there any clear standard to determine what evidence would prove or disprove the theory?
  
• Whistleblowers - how many people - and what kind - have to be loyal conspirators?
  
• Falsifiability - Is it possible to demonstrate that specific claims of the theory are false, or are they "unfalsifiable"?

None of this should be news to ATS members, since these are the usual criteria by which conspiracy theories on this site are usually debunked ('debunked' means 'proved false', by the way).

The idea that conspiracy theorists are a salve to those who have not done well in life is hardly new, as many have already pointed out. Here's the acerbic H.L. Mencken from 1936:

The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy.

'Moron' is a bit strong, but the observation cannot be denied.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Astyanax]