Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists

[FatFreddy]

Freddy, got any religious conspiracy links? Anything...Muslim, Christian and such.

Sorry. I'm an agnostic. I don't know much about religion.

Not a single person seems to agree with you, Freddy.
Isn't that weird how we're all paid sophists?

https://www.clubconspiracy.com/counter-intellegience-tricks-and-techniques-t4702.html
(excerpts)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They may work in teams, supporting each other and giving the illusion of popular support on the net.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously as per the paper on conspiracy nuts and their nutty beliefs, I presented earlier, you will never be convinced of the facts, due to a probably psychotic condition and other questionable qualities in your questionable makeup.

...said the guy who refuses to analyze this anomaly the way an objective truth-seeker would.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/psychology-of-conspiracy-theorists.144995/page-33#post-3648989

All the viewers can see that you're avoiding this issue because it has you checkmated. You're not fooling anybody with an IQ of ninety or over.

 

[paddoboy]

...said the guy who refuses to analyze this anomaly the way an objective truth-seeker would.

You havn't got any anomaly that hasn't already been done to death by idiotic conspiracy nuts, and explained away many times. Grow up Freddy.

All the viewers can see that you're avoiding this issue because it has you checkmated.

Sophistry, checkmated...hav't you got anything original to say? You sound like a programmed robot. plus of course, so far your idiotic imaginary claims remain unsupported...other then in your overactive, vivid imagination!

You're not fooling anybody with an IQ of ninety or over.

Yet the issue you refuse to confront remains as is. History rightly and factually records the three NASA programmes that culminated in six Moon landings. That is fact, and as such will always be recorded that way. Leaves you and your dwindling like minded conspiracy nuts rather isolated and lonely Freddy!

 

[paddoboy]

Sorry. I'm an agnostic. I don't know much about religion.

Let me help you....religion is similar to the conspiracists nutty brigade in many ways. They believe and accept unevidenced and unscientific phenomena and occurrences, due to their collective gullible nature, and a desire for maintaining an inner warm glow, against the scientific fact of the finality of death.
As a member of the nutty brigade, your argument flies in the face of science, as well as factual recorded reality. It also verges on criminality, as that other member of your brigade called Bart Sibrel demonstrated with his assault on Buzz Aldrin.
Buzz, old Freddy was the second man after Armstrong to walk on the Moon....
Have you ever confronted an Apollo Astronaut about your problem Freddy? They're getting on in years now, but I would still bet they would certainly put you in your place!

 

[paddoboy]

Conspiracy Theories Are for Losers....I mean who fucking well did not know that?

https://oxford.universitypressschol...YBL1MIWjL0TcuVm21iLTbr0nJUNnLMvhoC6kwQAvD_BwE

Conspiracy Theories Are for Losers
Joseph E. Uscinski
Joseph M. Parent
DOI:10.1093/acprofso/9780199351800.003.0006


This chapter argues that conspiracy theories are essentially alarm systems and coping mechanisms to help deal with foreign threat and domestic power centers. Thus, they tend to resonate when groups are suffering from loss, weakness, or disunity. But nothing fails like success, and ascending groups trigger dynamics that check and eventually reverse the advance of conspiracy theories. In short, because defeat and exclusion are their biggest inducements, conspiracy theories are for “losers,” though sooner or later everyone must play the loser. In short, successful conspiracy theories conform to a strategic logic based on threat perception.
Who Are the Conspiracy Theorists?
Joseph E. Uscinski
Joseph M. Parent
DOI:10.1093/acprofso/9780199351800.003.0004


This chapter draws on a 2012 nationally representative Internet survey to examine underlying conspiratorial predispositions and beliefs about who is conspiring against whom. The survey allows researchers to correlate specific beliefs and general predispositions with demographic data, political opinions, and self-reported behaviors. It contends that there is an ideological belief system that determines how likely a person is to see conspiracies and believe in conspiracy theories. This belief system—called the conspiracy dimension—exists on a separate plane from political ideology and partisanship. Conspiracy theorists are also systematically different from the general population but share an underappreciated collection of traits that gives them a familial resemblance.

 

[paddoboy]

And here's an interview I posted ealier on the subject of conspiracies and those that push them, on Australia's 60 Minutes.......worth another repeat.....

 

[paddoboy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Sibrel#Conviction_for_vandalism_in_parking_dispute
Conviction for vandalism in parking dispute
In July 2009, Sibrel, who at the time was working as a Nashville taxicab driver, was charged with vandalism when he jumped up and down on the hood of a car owned by a woman with whom he was having a parking dispute. Court documents show he was arrested after the driver refused to pull out of a parking space he wanted. The arresting officer wrote, "A few moments later the parking space in front of the victim opened up and Sibrel drove into it and parked." Sibrel "then walked up to the victim's car and jumped onto the hood, and then jumped up and down several times." The report says he caused US$1,431.33 worth of damage, after which Sibrel pleaded guilty to vandalism and was placed on probation.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Typical action one expects from a fucking nutty conspiracy ratbag, with obvious psychological problems.

 

[foghorn]

Sorry. I'm an agnostic. I don't know much about religion.

''Don't know much about'', when has that stopped you giving links to things, such as anti-vexxing?
There are people on youtube telling of their experiences of God and there are youtube clips out there saying God is a myth. How come you, Freddy, have decided not to go with one or the other there?

 

[foghorn]

How about your analysing the anomaly I posted in post #671.

The OP title is ''Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists''.
Why are you avoiding the question about why you, Freddy, choose to avoid picking between God being a myth and there being a God?
Again, the OP title is ''Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists''.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Members are reminded that this thread is about the topic introduced in the opening post.

In particular, this is not a place to discuss the specific claims of particular conspiracy theories.

 

[billvon]

They may work in teams, supporting each other and giving the illusion of popular support on the net.

Yep. You do this regularly, citing other conspiracy theory posters to "bolster your support."

All the viewers can see that you're avoiding this issue because it has you checkmated. You're not fooling anybody with an IQ of ninety or over.

Most people here do not have the desire to be seen as "special" that you have.

Also, a note - anyone that alludes to how high their IQ is generally has a fairly low one.

 

[David C]

Sorry. I don't know much about religion.

Alongside your lack of science, history, politics etc. etc.

4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved.

Cobblers. You wouldn't even recognise professional input.

They may work in teams, supporting each other and giving the illusion of popular support on the net.

It's not an illusion. The ones who tend to believe in conspiracy shite are the ones who congregate in places where they aren't really challenged. It is you who always refers to "the viewers", yet when they turn up and laugh at you they suddenly become part of this bullshit collective team giving your theories a battering.

...said the guy who refuses to analyze this anomaly the way an objective truth-seeker would.

Your ignorant claims and frequently spammed opinions are not anomalies. You also don't get to make a negative comparison just because people ignore you. You are the complete opposite of a truth seeker. You are not even close to being objective. You are the worst case of poster driven by confirmation bias I have ever encountered. What's worse, you feel the need to scatter far and wide the garbage you blunder upon.

All the viewers can see that you're avoiding this issue because it has you checkmated.

But you just said all the viewers were some horrid gang of people. The viewers NEVER agree with you, they just laugh at your behaviour.

You're not fooling anybody with an IQ of ninety or over.

Piffle. You have no apparent redeeming features. If you actually have an IQ over 90, it is not obvious.

 

[candy]

I think people believe in conspiracy theories because there have been conspiracies in the past therefore the possibility of another exists.
Most people react with their emotions first. Critical analysis is done by very few. Most stay with their first thought.

 

[FatFreddy]

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...ere-probably-faked.163437/page-3#post-3644579

But you just said all the viewers were some horrid gang of people. The viewers NEVER agree with you, they just laugh at your behaviour.

How is it possible know whether or not the people laughing are paid sophists?

https://www.clubconspiracy.com/counter-intellegience-tricks-and-techniques-t4702.html
(excerpts)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They may work in teams, supporting each other and giving the illusion of popular support on the net. (Remember, net IDs are basically free, and one person can have many.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We'd have to examine a specific case and decide who's right but that's forbidden in this thread.

Moderator note: Members are reminded that this thread is about the topic introduced in the opening post.

In particular, this is not a place to discuss the specific claims of particular conspiracy theories.

I suggest that any viewers who are having doubts go check out some of the closed threads in the conspiracy section and decide for themselves.

 

[David C]

How is it possible know whether or not the people laughing are paid sophists?

You just posted that same snipped crap which I responded to already(post 661)!! Do you have some affliction we don't know about? Is this some sort of OCD?

So how do I know they are laughing? I don't, I was being flippant - I assumed it as they always destroy your petty and repeat garbage - it is not such a leap to assume it is amusing. More to the point, how the bloody hell do you KNOW they are paid sophists. That is one of the most moronic claims you have made. You NEVER show how any of the arguments are false, you never offer any proof they are actually employed to engage your useless spam. It's impossible to explain to you that you are using circular reasoning, because you don't seem to understand it.

We'd have to examine a specific case and decide who's right but that's forbidden in this thread.

We've already decided. Everything you type comes from questionable sources, ignores experts and claims they are all lying. Everyone who takes you to the cleaners is some sort of operative, because you have some weirdo belief that you are right, when everyone sees you are not. I'm amazed you aren't auto-ejected from every forum you enter, simply on the grounds of you posting the same identical shite.

I suggest that any viewers who are having doubts go check out some of the closed threads in the conspiracy section and decide for themselves.

Yeah, of course they are going to go looking for your daft spam. If I was to offer a recommendation, it would be to any undergraduates doing a Psychology degree, you would make a superb case for Dunning Kruger.

 

[river]

Secrets .

 

[James R]

river:

Please don't clutter up threads with nonsense. Post on the topic, or leave it alone.

 

[FatFreddy]

Here's an article that's relevant to this debate.

https://newspunch.com/study-911-inside-job/
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------
When we look back at 2016 we will remember it as a year when people started waking up. Countless ‘conspiracy theories’ have become mainstream facts – and we haven’t made it all the way through this momentous year. Old people may still be dozing in front of their TV screens and accepting mainstream news on face value. But younger generations have started waking up and are starting to see things how they really are.

The term ‘conspiracy theorist’ was coined by the CIA in an effort to discredit viable theories by people who sought out the truth. First revealed by the New York Times in 1976, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request, the CIA had written a dispatch of its “psychological operations” — disinformation — specifically to “employ propaganda assets to refute the attacks of the critics” and “provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.”

2016 is proving remarkable for the sheer volume of information brought to light by people, events, and the general crumbling of deep-seated establishment narratives — and it’s no small matter for those whose claims had previously been met with scorn and derision.

 

[David C]

Here's an article that's relevant to this debate.

It is indeed. It demonstrates a conspiracy theorist article making claims about conspiracies that are simply not true. Who would have thought that?

https://newspunch.com/study-911-inside-job/

When we look back at 2016 we will remember it as a year when people started waking up.

A term used by conspiracy theories erroneously when the opposite is true. Dropping into a rabbit hole is more accurate.

Countless ‘conspiracy theories’ have become mainstream facts – and we haven’t made it all the way through this momentous year. Old people may still be dozing in front of their TV screens and accepting mainstream news on face value. But younger generations have started waking up and are starting to see things how they really are.

Ahaa, so the writer has deemed that people suddenly believing crap means it is "a fact"? List the "countless conspiracy theories" now fact. I await a large list and proof they are now fact.

The term ‘conspiracy theorist’ was coined by the CIA in an effort to discredit viable theories by people who sought out the truth.

Irony. The comedy conspiracy theorist is quoting a conspiracy theory that is a pile of crap!

There's a conspiracy theory that the CIA invented the term 'conspiracy theory' – here's why (theconversation.com)

and it’s no small matter for those whose claims had previously been met with scorn and derision.

Scorn and derision is usually when the person ignores evidence and refuses to budge in any way.

 

[FatFreddy]

We would have to analyze a theory in detail in order to decide whether it's credible and I can't do that in this thread.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/psychology-of-conspiracy-theorists.144995/page-34#post-3662336

Until we can do that, we can't come to any conclusions. All I can do is make sure the viewers see these articles defending conspiracy theorists.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...ere-probably-faked.163437/page-3#post-3644579

 

[billvon]

Here's an article that's relevant to this debate.

That's an article that attempts to use the 9/11 Truthers as an example of a conspiracy that's true.

That's like an article that says "oh, so the government says we landed on the moon? Well, they say the Earth is round too! Do you believe THAT, too, like some brainless sheep? Baaa!"