/_\

[Syndarn]

Wat.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/11/18/im-sick-and-tired-of-the-secrets-and-the-lies-jim-carrey-calls-out-illuminati-secrets-on-national-television/

...wat!
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/epa-barred-getting-advice-scientists
!!
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1422/text



*runs off*

[Dallane]

hue

[Syndarn]

So i am not crazy?

http://thespiritscience.net/2014/11/04/scientific-study-reveals-conspiracy-theorists-are-the-most-sane-of-all/ <-short explanation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23847577 <-- study

[Erunildo]

Nope, still crazy

As the first author of this study, I'd like to address a misleading headline that's been making the rounds lately: the idea that this study says that people who believe 9/11 conspiracy theories are better-adjusted than those who do not. This grossly misinterprets our results: this study says nothing about mental health, and its results do not justify any conclusions about one group of people being more or less "sane" than another.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23847577

You should really read you own links

In general, I would urge anyone who found this article via the "sanity" article to please think critically about headlines in the future. It is tempting to believe without question self-serving headlines that validate your prejudices and beliefs, but that's precisely when critical thinking is most important.

[Syndarn]

I did read that part before i posted. The title is slightly misleading, but i'm more interested towards the behavioral analysis content which in my opinion mirrors quite well into the discussions/debates that i have had on this forum. I think i did say about the same thing as that study seems to indicate in at least one thread, something about people wanting to stay in their comfort zones and defending their conventional beliefs with sharp teeth and pitchforks. So they wouldn't have to step out of the box into the unknown and dangerous.

The sane part probably is derived from that in the following way..

If the conspiracy theorist knows social accepted conventional "facts" + unaccepted social "facts" = then do a conclusion. (++)

If the conventional thinker knows social accepted conventional "facts" + doesn't accept or look even look at unaccepted social "facts" = then conclude. (+-)

Then we can see that the conspiracy theorist has been exposed to much more perspectives and has more data and can therefore make a more accurate analytic conclusion on whatever subject is discussed. I did not say right or wrong data, i just said more data.

[Erunildo]

Nobody is denying that people usually like to stay in their comfort zone, weather it's at work, their living style or whatever. But accepting your ***** crazy theories is not getting out of your comfort zone, its just common sense. You do the same thing but your comfort zone is a world where vaccines kill and faith in your body will cure any disease. You dont accept facts, studies and opinions from sources outside your comfort zone. So yeah, try to get out of your comfort zone into the unknown and dangerous world where vaccines can help you.

The sane part probably is derived from that in the following way..

If the conspiracy theorist knows social accepted conventional "facts" + unaccepted social "facts" = then do a conclusion. (++)

If the conventional thinker knows social accepted conventional "facts" + doesn't accept or look even look at unaccepted social "facts" = then conclude. (+-)

And here is a perfect example. The study doesn't say anything like this and you just twisted it to fit your comfort zone. You make up rules along the way, you put + and - arbitrarily just so the results agree with you.

Anyway, i am not gonna continue this discussion, you have proven again and again that you cling to your distorted views of everything and twist words and results to allign them with your views. Bring evidence and proof and people will maybe listen to you. Until then, well people will just laugh at you.

[Syndarn]

The study doesn't say anything like this and you just twisted it to fit your comfort zone.

I just said people who wrote the spirit science article probably reasoned like i suggested. Didn't say the study said it, but people who can read between the lines could very well draw that conclusion. Please explain how you claim that me being a conspiracy theorist and "believing" that everything is out to get me is a "comfort zone" for me? .. wouldn't it be more safer and comforting if i just denied every conspiracy and took a conventional approach like the majority?

[DarkNacht]

Conspiracy theories are like religions, people believe them with out evidence and they typically say that a powerful(many times impossibly powerful) entity is in control. Even though the theorist may not like the entity they have assigned the control to its still more comfortable for them to have it in control then to accept that much what happens in the world is because of the actions of many different individuals with different agendas, incompetence, and random chance. They may see the controller as evil but it is still more conformable that someone is in charge. Many conspiracy theorists also tend to have an external locus of control and a high level of hostility their theories give them a justification and a target for these.
Also having more information is not beneficial if the information is incorrect and you don't analyze it critically.

[loftar]

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/epa-barred-getting-advice-scientists

lol. Yes, because the conspiracy is of the horrible anti-scientific "conservative" against the nice, open-minded people at EPA who just think of all our common best, rather than the central planners hiding yet another manufactured crisis behind the guise of environmentalism to grab more power for themselves.

[Feone]

My experience with "conspiracy theorists" has been that they certainly don't think very critical at all. Anything in support of the "conventional" point gets rejected by default, whereas anything supporting the alternate view is immediately accepted. Anyone contesting their point is labled a sheep and subsequently ignored. Which is basically the exact same thing this article accuses the conventional viewpoint of.

Why people would do this is very simple. "knowing" the truth while everybody else is asleep also means that the "aware" person must be smarter, better. In short, it's just another way for people to feel superior to others. This is common in many (every?) groups, from religions (or lack thereof) to xbox vs ps4 vs pc etc. Some people definitely think more critical than others though, but the people that don't aren't exclusive to any particular group.

Conspiracy theorists like to think people ridicule them because they can't stand the painful truth of their superior knowledge.
I personally think it's more because believing articles that are basically "Hey some guy said this! He also said he is in a position to know, he must be right!" while rejecting everything published by various news agencies is hypocritical at best.