The Mind of the Conspiracy Theorist

The purpose of this site is to deny ignorance. The purpose of this post is to challenge all of you to read this and weigh in with a sober response.

I am posting what I believe to be the truth. Why do people believe in conspiracy theories? What type of mind is attracted to them. If denying ignorance is a true goal of yours, try to understand what is below, and be truthful to yourself.

I used to be a HUGE conspiracy buff, but have seen the light. I would like to offer you all insight into the Mind of the Conspiracy Theorist:


"[edit] Psychological origins
According to some psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory tends to believe in others; a person who does not believe in one conspiracy theory tends not to believe another.[26] This may be caused by differences in the information upon which parties rely in formulating their conclusions.

Psychologists believe that the search for meaning is common in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories, and may be powerful enough alone to lead to the first formulating of the idea. Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part. Some research carried out at the University of Kent, UK suggests people may be influenced by conspiracy theories without being aware that their attitudes have changed. After reading popular conspiracy theories about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, participants in this study correctly estimated how much their peers' attitudes had changed, but significantly underestimated how much their own attitudes had changed to become more in favor of the conspiracy theories. The authors conclude that conspiracy theories may therefore have a 'hidden power' to influence people's beliefs.[27]

Humanistic psychologists argue that even if the cabal behind the conspiracy is almost always perceived as hostile there is, often, still an element of reassurance in it, for conspiracy theorists, in part because it is more consoling to think that complications and upheavals in human affairs, at least, are created by human beings rather than factors beyond human control. Belief in such a cabal is a device for reassuring oneself that certain occurrences are not random, but ordered by a human intelligence. This renders such occurrences comprehensible and potentially controllable. If a cabal can be implicated in a sequence of events, there is always the hope, however tenuous, of being able to break the cabal's power - or joining it and exercising some of that power oneself. Finally, belief in the power of such a cabal is an implicit assertion of human dignity - an often unconscious but necessary affirmation that man is not totally helpless, but is responsible, at least in some measure, for his own destiny.[28]

[edit] Projection
Some historians have argued that there is an element of psychological projection in conspiracism. This projection, according to the argument, is manifested in the form of attribution of undesirable characteristics of the self to the conspirators. Richard Hofstadter, in his essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics, stated that:

...it is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him. The enemy may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship... the Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy. The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through "front" groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy.

[edit] Epistemic bias
“ Conspiracy theories are popular because no matter what they posit, they are all actually comforting, because they all are models of radical simplicity. ”
—Novelist William Gibson, October 2007.[30]

It is possible that certain basic human epistemic biases are projected onto the material under scrutiny. According to one study humans apply a 'rule of thumb' by which we expect a significant event to have a significant cause.[31] The study offered subjects four versions of events, in which a foreign president was (a) successfully assassinated, (b) wounded but survived, (c) survived with wounds but died of a heart attack at a later date, and (d) was unharmed. Subjects were significantly more likely to suspect conspiracy in the case of the 'major events' — in which the president died — than in the other cases, despite all other evidence available to them being equal.

Another epistemic 'rule of thumb' that can be misapplied to a mystery involving other humans is cui bono? (who stands to gain?). This sensitivity to the hidden motives of other people may be an evolved and universal feature of human consciousness. However, this is also a valid rule of thumb for detectives to use when generating a list of suspects to investigate. Used in this way "Who had the motive, means and opportunity?" is a perfectly valid use of this rule of thumb.[citation needed]

[edit] Clinical psychology
For relatively rare individuals, an obsessive compulsion to believe, prove or re-tell a conspiracy theory may indicate one or more of several well-understood psychological conditions, and other hypothetical ones: paranoia, denial, schizophrenia, mean world syndrome.[32]

[edit] Socio-political origins
Christopher Hitchens represents conspiracy theories as the 'exhaust fumes of democracy', the unavoidable result of a large amount of information circulating among a large number of people. Other social commentators and sociologists argue that conspiracy theories are produced according to variables that may change within a democratic (or other type of) society.

Conspiratorial accounts can be emotionally satisfying when they place events in a readily-understandable, moral context. The subscriber to the theory is able to assign moral responsibility for an emotionally troubling event or situation to a clearly-conceived group of individuals. Crucially, that group does not include the believer. The believer may then feel excused of any moral or political responsibility for remedying whatever institutional or societal flaw might be the actual source of the dissonance.[33]

Where responsible behavior is prevented by social conditions, or is simply beyond the ability of an individual, the conspiracy theory facilitates the emotional discharge or closure that such emotional challenges (after Erving Goffman)[citation needed] require. Like moral panics, conspiracy theories thus occur more frequently within communities that are experiencing social isolation or political dis-empowerment.

Mark Fenster argues that "just because overarching conspiracy theories are wrong does not mean they are not on to something. Specifically, they ideologically address real structural inequities, and constitute a response to a withering civil society and the concentration of the ownership of the means of production, which together leave the political subject without the ability to be recognized or to signify in the public realm" (1999: 67).

Sociological historian Holger Herwig found in studying German explanations for the origins of World War I:

Those events that are most important are hardest to understand, because they attract the greatest attention from myth makers and charlatans.
This normal process could be diverted by a number of influences. At the level of the individual, pressing psychological needs may influence the process, and certain of our universal mental tools may impose epistemic 'blind spots'.

At the group or sociological level, historic factors may make the process of assigning satisfactory meanings more or less problematic.

Alternatively, conspiracy theories may arise when evidence available in the public record does not correspond with the common or official version of events. In this regard, conspiracy theories may sometimes serve to highlight 'blind spots' in the common or official interpretations of events (Fenster, 1999).

Conspiracy theorists on the internet are often dismissed as a "fringe" group, but evidence suggests that a broad cross section of Americans today believe in some conspiracy theories.

[edit] Media tropes
Media commentators regularly note a tendency in news media and wider culture to understand events through the prism of individual agents, as opposed to more complex structural or institutional accounts.[34] If this is a true observation, it may be expected that the audience which both demands and consumes this emphasis itself is more receptive to personalized, dramatic accounts of social phenomena.

A second, perhaps related, media trope is the effort to allocate individual responsibility for negative events. The media have a tendency to start to seek culprits if an event occurs that is of such significance that it does not drop off the news agenda within a few days. Of this trend, it has been said that the concept of a pure accident is no longer permitted in a news item.[35] Again, if this is a true observation, it may reflect a real change in how the media consumer perceives negative events.

Hollywood motion pictures and television shows perpetuate and enlarge belief in conspiracy as a standard functioning of corporations and governments. Feature films such as Enemy of the State and Shooter, among scores of others, propound conspiracies as a normal state of affairs, having dropped the idea of questioning conspiracies typical of movies of eras prior to about 1970. Shooter even contains the line, "that is how conspiracies work" in reference to the JFK murder. Interestingly, movies and television shows do the same as the news media in regard to personalizing and dramatizing issues which are easy to involve in conspiracy theories. Coming Home converts the huge problem of the returning injured Vietnam War soldier into the chance that the injured soldier will fall in love, and when he does, the strong implication is that the larger problem is also solved. This factor is a natural outcome of Hollywood script development which wishes to highlight one or two major characters which can be played by major stars, and thus a good way of marketing the movie is established but that rings false upon examination. Further, the necessity to serve up a dubiously justified happy ending, although expected by audiences, actually has another effect of heightening the sense of falseness and contrived stories, underpinning the public's loss of belief in virtually anything any mass media says. Into the vacuum of that loss of belief falls explanation by conspiracy theory.

Too, the act of dramatizing real or fictional events injects a degree of falseness or contrived efforts which media savvy people today can identify easily. "News" today is virtually always dramatized, at least by pitting "one side" against another in the fictional journalistic concept that all stories must contain "both sides" (as though reality could be reduced to two sides) or by using more intensive dramatic developments similar to feature movies. That is, by obvious dramatizing, the media reinforces the idea that all things are contrived for someone's gain which could be another definition of, at least, political conspiracies theories. --Dr. Charles Harpole in "History of American Cinema" Scribner/U. Calif Press.

At the group or sociological level, historic factors may make the process of assigning satisfactory meanings more or less problematic.

Alternatively, conspiracy theories may arise when evidence available in the public record does not correspond with the common or official version of events. In this regard, conspiracy theories may sometimes serve to highlight 'blind spots' in the common or official interpretations of events (Fenster, 1999).

Conspiracy theorists on the internet are often dismissed as a "fringe" group, but evidence suggests that a broad cross section of Americans today believe in some conspiracy theories.

[edit] Media tropes
Media commentators regularly note a tendency in news media and wider culture to understand events through the prism of individual agents, as opposed to more complex structural or institutional accounts.[34] If this is a true observation, it may be expected that the audience which both demands and consumes this emphasis itself is more receptive to personalized, dramatic accounts of social phenomena.

A second, perhaps related, media trope is the effort to allocate individual responsibility for negative events. The media have a tendency to start to seek culprits if an event occurs that is of such significance that it does not drop off the news agenda within a few days. Of this trend, it has been said that the concept of a pure accident is no longer permitted in a news item.[35] Again, if this is a true observation, it may reflect a real change in how the media consumer perceives negative events.

Hollywood motion pictures and television shows perpetuate and enlarge belief in conspiracy as a standard functioning of corporations and governments. Feature films such as Enemy of the State and Shooter, among scores of others, propound conspiracies as a normal state of affairs, having dropped the idea of questioning conspiracies typical of movies of eras prior to about 1970. Shooter even contains the line, "that is how conspiracies work" in reference to the JFK murder. Interestingly, movies and television shows do the same as the news media in regard to personalizing and dramatizing issues which are easy to involve in conspiracy theories. Coming Home converts the huge problem of the returning injured Vietnam War soldier into the chance that the injured soldier will fall in love, and when he does, the strong implication is that the larger problem is also solved. This factor is a natural outcome of Hollywood script development which wishes to highlight one or two major characters which can be played by major stars, and thus a good way of marketing the movie is established but that rings false upon examination. Further, the necessity to serve up a dubiously justified happy ending, although expected by audiences, actually has another effect of heightening the sense of falseness and contrived stories, underpinning the public's loss of belief in virtually anything any mass media says. Into the vacuum of that loss of belief falls explanation by conspiracy theory.

Too, the act of dramatizing real or fictional events injects a degree of falseness or contrived efforts which media savvy people today can identify easily. "News" today is virtually always dramatized, at least by pitting "one side" against another in the fictional journalistic concept that all stories must contain "both sides" (as though reality could be reduced to two sides) or by using more intensive dramatic developments similar to feature movies. That is, by obvious dramatizing, the media reinforces the idea that all things are contrived for someone's gain which could be another definition of, at least, political conspiracies theories. --Dr. Charles Harpole in "History of American Cinema" Scribner/U. Calif Press.

[edit] Fusion paranoia
Michael Kelly, a Washington Post journalist and neoconservative critic of anti-war movements on both the left and right, coined the term "fusion paranoia" to refer to a political convergence of left-wing and right-wing activists around anti-war issues and civil liberties, which he claimed were motivated by a shared belief in conspiracism or anti-government views.

Social critics have adopted this term to refer to how the synthesis of paranoid conspiracy theories, which were once limited to American fringe audiences, has given them mass appeal and enabled them to become commonplace in mass media, thereby inaugurating an unrivaled period of people actively preparing for apocalyptic millenarian scenarios in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. They warn that this development may not only fuel lone wolf terrorism but have devastating effects on American political life, such as the rise of a revolutionary right-wing populist movement capable of subverting the established political powers.[36]

Daniel Pipes, a Jerusalem Post journalist, wrote in the 2004 article Fusion paranoia:

Fears of a petty conspiracy – a political rival or business competitor plotting to do you harm – are as old as the human psyche. But fears of a grand conspiracy – that the Illuminati or Jews plan to take over the world – go back only 900 years and have been operational for just two centuries, since the French Revolution. Conspiracy theories grew in importance from then until World War II, when two arch-conspiracy theorists, Hitler and Stalin, faced off against each other, causing the greatest blood-letting in human history. This hideous spectacle sobered Americans, who in subsequent decades relegated conspiracy theories to the fringe, where mainly two groups promoted such ideas.
The politically disaffected: Blacks (Louis Farrakhan, Cynthia McKinney), the hard Right (John Birch Society, Pat Buchanan), and other alienated elements (Ross Perot, Lyndon LaRouche). Their theories imply a political agenda, but lack much of a following.

The culturally suspicious: These include "Kennedy assassinologists," "ufologists," and those who believe a reptilian race runs the earth and alien installations exist under the earth's surface. Such themes enjoy enormous popularity (a year 2000 poll found 43 percent of Americans believing in UFOs), but carry no political agenda.

The major new development, reports Barkun, professor of political science in the Maxwell School at Syracuse University, is not just an erosion in the divisions between these two groups, but their joining forces with occultists, persons bored by rationalism. Occultists are drawn to what Barkun calls the "cultural dumping ground of the heretical, the scandalous, the unfashionable, and the dangerous" – such as spiritualism, Theosophy, alternative medicine, alchemy, and astrology. Thus, the author who worries about the Secret Service taking orders from the Bavarian Illuminati is old school; the one who worries about a "joint Reptilian-Bavarian Illuminati" takeover is at the cutting edge of the new synthesis. These bizarre notions constitute what the late Michael Kelly termed "fusion paranoia," a promiscuous absorption of fears from any source whatsoever.[37]

WIKIPEDIA.

* A conspiracy theorist doesn't copy and paste whole page of wikipedia which looks like a wall.

Just my 2 cents.

reply to post by December_Rain


I don't understand what that means. Its very useful information, and sums it up better than I could have.

Ya I am sure there is a rule against copy/pasting things here.. Call me crazy but meh.. I think so..

Even Conspiracy Theorists look at rules..

::EDIT::

For the record I didn't read it.. Its to much, I don't need someone to tell me who a CT is.. WE all know why we are the way we are..

You don't have to tell us in a book you spammed off of a wiki site.

[edit on 1/27/2010 by ThichHeaded]

if the initial theory in this wall of text is true, people will agree with you.....since many here do read conspiracy theories and agree is at least a few.

if they dont, well then your conspiracy theory "conspiracy" doesn't pan out.

Wow, what an opening rant!

Dang it, I really hate this but... I formed all my conspiracy theories almost two decades by reading books and way long before finding ATS. Heck, I don't even talk about half of them here either.

I've said this before but since I like reading what I write, I'll say it again; trying to dig the minds of people is a favorite pastime of those who hold themselves in higher regard than those mere mortals around them. By categorizing and quantifying us, they elevate themselves above what they perceive to be weaknesses.

The human condition may encompass many things but one thing that has not changed, is that we are all as different and individual as a fingerprint.

Good post but... I don't think of people as exploded images of data and personally, I refuse the offer to be listed.

Best

reply to post by The Cloak


You actually read all that?

you crazy man you.. What did it say in a few sentences?

So in other words your are promoting the Freudian concept born of the ramblings of a coc aine tinged mind, that humans are perplexed and frustrated by the ramifications and responsibilities of utilizing freewill.

That the effort through those who utilize pseudo psycho-babble in deflective attempts to counter actual history through the tedious display of categorized modalities should reign supreme by convincing people that contrary to actual history major world event after major world event has not unfolded due to the successful plotting of and carrying out of conspiracies.

That we should all stop asking intelligent questions and looking for intelligent answers to simply accept the dogmas perpetuated by world class conspirators to form a shared reality foisted on us through acts of conformity meant to in fact not only to simplify the ease in which conspirators can carry out their goals but through codependency comfort and assure one another that nothing untoward is ever conspired upon by any group of people to effect an advantage of any other group of people to their detriment?

That if we will but only see the light as you have that the mind of a conspiracy theorist is not a strong, intelligent or rational one but is suffering from deep seeded insecurities and paranoia that their theories are fraudulently formulated to create extravagant and intricate alternative belief systems to accept instead the simple and typically absurd explanations for the state of the human condition that conspiracies will stop happening but we will all realize that life has always unfolded through an accidental and random series of events than if and on the rare occasion any number of people conspire together to guide them are only those people with hearts and intentions of pure gold?

That if we but just empower the pseudo-intellectuals to dazzle us with a series of word games aimed at explaining away the rational as being irrational we can all happily live ever after in a utopian paradise that is not devoid of war, death, poverty or cruelty but is simply an acceptable outcome of a world governed and destined by completely random and unconnected events that genuinely accepted dogmas if accepted will make this imperfect world seem perfect enough for us?

Yes that is all the talk of weak and easily manipulated mind that longs for conformity and the validation and absolution of the largest number of people regardless of the correctness involved.

That is the mind of an utter and complete hapless victim who has in fact abdicated their freewill and the responsibility it entails for a self defeating codependency on other victims and their victimizers.

What conspiracies were you researching by the way that made you see the ‘light”.

History is full of proven conspiracies, untold millions of people have lost lives and livelihoods and ways of life to them.

To deny that conspiracies exist, and to portend that governments alone can protect us from them and should be the only remedy to them, and the only people who think of them is perhaps the most foolish if not the most ignorant thing a human being could do.

The fact that so many people in fact fall for such ludicrous and weak minded notions is why the world is the royally screwed up place that it is.

A conspiracy theorist is nothing but a detective, and really no different than the government and private detectives paid and hired to solve crimes and mysteries every day.

If you think there is something sinister about conspiracy theorists you must also imagine there is something sinister about detectives and those who are paid to solve crimes and mysteries.

The mind of a conspiracy theorist is an analytical mind, a highly critical mind, and a very curious mind, and typically a very open minded mind.

Now if you have some how seen some light that has convinced you such minds are a danger to society and to themselves, I would contend you were convinced of that by someone who is a danger to society and themselves.





[edit on 27/1/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


As always upto the point
Second line.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

The mind of a conspiracy theorist is an analytical mind, a highly critical mind, and a very curious mind, and typically a very open minded mind.

Agreed ... though for some a slightly more tweaked and appropriately psychologically marginalizing neat little box is usefully convenient ...

“Arguments advanced by conspiracy theorists tell you more about the believer than about the event,” Goertzel says.

cont...

Conspiracy thinkers share an optimistic conviction that they can find “the truth,” spread it to the masses and foster social change, Goldberg asserts.

cont...

“It seems likely that conspiratorial beliefs serve a similar psychological function to superstitious, paranormal and, more controversially, religious beliefs, as they help some people to gain a sense of control over an unpredictable world,” French says.

THE INNER WORLDS OF CONSPIRACY BELIEVERS

See, it's all our fault.

There are two types of people. One type believes the government never commits crimes because a collective would never do that. The other believes government has equal capacity for crime as all people. The people who believes government have equal capacity for crime usually believe multiple conspiracy theories. The people who believe government never does wrong in general will believe no conspiracies have ever happened. I laugh hard and loud at my former notion that a collective of people will never commit a serious crime that an individual certainly can and does commit on a regular basis.

You can put forth all kinds of evidence the government did a wrong. And if it were an individual, it would be an obvious crime and they'd be guilty in a heartbeat from the "no-conspiracy theorist". But if you show that same evidence and then point the finger at just about any government, "oh no, you see the government just would never do that therefore they didn't". Its laughable but true. Its basically a religious faith but instead of the faith being applied to God it is applied to the government authorities.

Any crime the government commits cannot be a crime because "its them doing it". They really believe that. Look at Richard Nixon's famous speech about how the president can do anything he wishes and it is lawful, because the president IS the law.

Most people who have worked in the government all their lives have the personal tales of conspiracies. I know only one government worker and she told me about the bribes she rejected and about some of her co-workers landing in prison because of taking those bribes. These are the type of people who know in fact government is not one unit but rather many different groups, all of which have their own agendas.

The key in understanding conspiracies can happen more than anything else is knowing that government workers are there for the paycheck, not as virtuous public servants working for the common good. Workplaces absolutely frown upon anyone who stands up for what is right as a rat to be stamped out with their boots... traitors to the government. There was a cop who openly advocated marijuana prohibition recently and during his hearing to be fired a cop wore a shirt with a rat on it with an implicit death threat. Get it? If you ever threaten their paycheck a lot of them are angry, and a few of them wish you to DIE NOW, RAT.

"A conspiracy theorist is nothing but a detective, and really no different than the government and private detectives paid and hired to solve crimes and mysteries every day. "

No...they are not. Detectives use facts and verifiable information before they make any judgments. People were in a FRENZY to find any information that 9/11 was staged... People wanted to believe that, so they reverse engineered the evidence.

reply to post by argonfritz


Actually ... detective work is a little more than that. Fact finding is of course primary, but in conjunction with critical thinking, an understanding of human psychology and motive, experience, interrogation skills, etc ... Even then, theories of crimes have to be generated and plausible scenarios explored. Often they are focused on the wrong suspect or the wrong theory, sometimes obsessively so.

So there's much in common between CT and detectives ... primarily the fundamental instinct to question who, why, how, when.

Edit to add: that is not to say that I disagree with you ... some people's egos are inseparably attached to their beliefs and said beliefs often cloud judgment and critical thinking. But of course that penchant is universal and not restricted to either CT or detectives.


[edit on 28 Jan 2010 by schrodingers dog]

I agree, something has to be done about all these nut jobs, especially those in the justice system who make conspiracy laws, of which there are hundreds. If two guys rob a liquor store it's considered a real conspiracy in most states. How did all these lunatic laws get on the books anyways? Some mentally ill people even believe there's a secret organization called "the mob" conspiring to commit crimes. Paranoid schizophrenics frequently believe imaginary "al-Qaeda" terrorists are conspiring to get them. It's sad really.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


That really is the truth regarding most dedicated conspiracy theorists. It really is about simply being a good detective and a lot of it does involve conjecture, and working through various scenarios until you find the one that really fits.

It’s the challenge of a good mystery, a whodunit, trying to painstakingly fit pieces together trying to at times arrive at what really happened through looking at every possibility until everything that doesn’t fit all the corners and nooks and crannies are removed. Then at that point you really are left with the only thing that could have happened based on that one scenario and person or persons that everything fits snugly into place.

It’s not that most conspiracy theorists go through life paranoid, insecure or afraid they simply take note when something is wrong with a picture, with what’s being told and put out there doesn’t actually fit, there are too many empty or implausible pieces in that picture being presented.

Then it’s really just a matter of curiosity, a puzzle, and wanting to responsibly know the truth, simply for the sake of having a well informed and accurate world view.

The notion of somehow criminalizing or wanting to make villains out of people who simply demand nothing less than a complete or the most complete truth possible is simply self defeating and counter productive.

Ultimately I think what so many average people find daunting about conspiracies and conspiracy theorists is the challenge that they represent, as far as causing people who normally don’t give a second thought to things to have to exert themselves to that extent that they attempt to justify their take on things through information that they have and believe that when they put it forward they know it doesn’t fit. That there are huge holes and inconsistencies and unexplained gaps and parts to it, and it’s not so much the ego of them having to admit that they are wrong. It has much more to do with them having to take a greater level of responsibility for their own actions and even change how they act and react if they were to adopt a different perspective that radically departed from their own.

Most people are trapped in their own little comfort zone and they prefer to cling to the ideas and notions and dogmas that make that little zone they inhabit and how they interact comfortable to them. At the end of the day they would much prefer a comfortable and well worn lie, than an uncomfortable and challenging truth.

The hysterical thing is we are all a little crazy but when it comes to genuine conspiracy theorists we are most likely a whole lot less crazy than the people going through life constantly reinforcing their blinders and adjusting them to keep straight on a path that brings them more and more misery with each passing step and year.

Life is a funny old dog!

From what I've seen on ATS, most conspiracy theorists don't understand what actual evidence is, ranking things like amateur's opinions and oft-repeated claims alongside scientific study and official record.

If every single conspiracy theorist adopted critical thinking, there would be far fewer conspiracy theories, and any actual conspiracies that appear would be made public. Instead, we're all drowning in claims, half-truths, misunderstandings, opinion, and ignorance. If a real conspiracy was happening, and it made it on ATS, it would be drowned out by the sound of people wailing about how HAARP is eating their babies, or how reptilians are going to blow up the moon in 2012.

The mind of the conspiracy theorist seems to thrive on paranoia, and seems to not care about evidence. It also seems to have no desire to be proven wrong, ignoring evidence contrary to their chosen pet theories, and jumping on anything that seems to support said theories.

People in the conspiracy theory group continually talk about research, and yet their research seems to be limited to YouTube videos and websites written by fellow believers. If we look at past conspiracies that have been unearthed and presented to the public, we can see they were uncovered due to real research - people getting off their butts, out the door, and talking to people. Real research like getting court documents, or performing surveillance. Not finding someone who agrees with their claims and thinking that is evidence.

The whole conspiracy theory culture is mainly sad. The few rational people in it are given a bad name by the irrational behaviour present in others. I find it noble that ATS instructs its users to "deny ignorance", but I find it sad that ATS fosters ignorance by not categorically calling people out on their baseless nonsense as often as they should.

Critical thinking is difficult, and demonstrates that most conspiracies are not real, which is why people who want to believe don't employ it. Critical thinking is only used by those who want to know.