why do people believe in conspiracies?

[firecoins]

So I used to believe in a conspiracy, one that killed Kennedy. But in the last 5 years since 9/11, that has changed. I have seen the way in which CTers rewrite history to create these conspiracies. CTers actually believe their own bs. Why do people feel the need to create this CT world? Why is it always the Jewish, Nazi, Freemason, Illumunati, Oil Baron, Miliary Industrial complex, new world order that seems to be behind everything?

[Oliver]

We had a similar thread a while ago - you may dig it out of its grave... :D
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63849

[Toro]

Well, I had to pad my post count with innocuous statements in other threads, but now I'm up to 15 so I can post links.

Here is a good article explaining why people are prone to believe this type of nonsense.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1531304,00.html

[Dog Town]

Well, I had to pad my post count with innocuous statements in other threads, but now I'm up to 15 so I can post links.

Here is a good article explaining why people are prone to believe this type of nonsense.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1531304,00.html

Here is some of the Time article
The population of world No. 2 is larger than you might think. A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality.

Yet here is the Scripps poll

--The collapse if the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.*

Very likely 6%
Somewhat likely 10%
Unlikely 77%
Don't know 6%
Other response 1%


--The Pentagon was not struck by an airliner captured by terrorists but, instead was hit by a cruise missle fired by the U.S. military.*

Very likely 6%
Somewhat likely 6%
Not likely 80%
Don't kniow 7%
Other response 1%

Not sure where this 36% crap keeps coming from? Could it be this?
People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East.*

Very likely 16%
Somewhat likely 20%
Not likely 59%
Don't know 5%


The last is a far cry from the CT crowd nonsense. No one but 6% seem sure of the CT story, and that's not a BIG surprise!

[Josh Redstone]

My theory is that deep down, some CTists really do want this stuff to be true. I have no idea why, but every time I pose questions to them like 'Surely you don't want to be right?', they say something like 'Of course, it'd be great if we were wrong.' Well, I wonder why they don't bother looking at all their theories which have been debunked and re-evaluate their beleifs. The only answer I can think of is that they want all this to be real for some reason.

[slingblade]

It confirms for them that life's problems can't all be laid at one's own doorstep. It helps them remove the obligation of personal responsibility.

If the government (or Illuminati, or Star Chamber, or whatever) can be found responsible for horrible things we had no idea "they" were doing, then what other horrible things have "they" done which could explain why my life is in the crapper through no fault of my own?

[Beth]

Not sure where this 36% crap keeps coming from? Could it be this?

Quote:
People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East.*

Very likely 16%
Somewhat likely 20%
Not likely 59%
Don't know 5%


The last is a far cry from the CT crowd nonsense. No one but 6% seem sure of the CT story, and that's not a BIG surprise!

Subtle phrasing differences in survey questions can make a big difference in the responses. This question is phrased "or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East" - well, it's pretty clear from the whole WMD debacle that our current administration wanted to go to war in Iraq. Add to that the fact that enough stuff has surfaced about warnings within the law-enforcement and security communities that many people find it reasonable to conclude that the statement above is true without necessarily assuming a conspiracy occurred to make it happen. Apparently about 30% more than find the conspiracies theories reasonable.

[Jerry_ex_machina]

Take a look at the novel Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Ecco. It changed my thinking about conspiracy theories and skepticism in general. In short, when looking at seemingly disconnected events the mind immediately begins searching for patterns and meaning.

However, always remember, proof of correlation does not mean proof of cause; vis-a-vis just because there are pyramids all over the world doesn't mean they were all built by the same culture!

[G-K-4]

Here is Chip Berlet's answer to why people believe conspiracy thoeries. Basically, they want to be the good guys. Emphasis added:
Conspiracism is a narrative form of scapegoating that portrays an enemy as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good. Conspiracism assigns tiny cabals of evildoers a superhuman power to control events, frames social conflict as part of a transcendent struggle between Good and Evil, and makes leaps of logic, such as guilt by association, in analyzing evidence. Conspiracists often employ common fallacies of logic in analyzing factual evidence to assert connections, causality, and intent that are frequently unlikely or nonexistent. As a distinct narrative form of scapegoating, conspiracism uses demonization to justify constructing the scapegoats as wholly evil while reconstructing the scapegoater as a hero. SOURCE: http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Why smart people believe weird things (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002F4E6-8CF7-1D49-90FB809EC5880000&pageNumber=1&catID=2)
and also here (http://socsci.gulfcoast.edu/rbaldwin/Why Do Smart People Believe Weird Things.htm)

[Muckar-duva]

Hm. Our prime minister, Olof Palme, was murdered in 1986. The only guy accused of the murder was acquitted in trial. As there is no, NO, physical evidence that he (Christer Pettersson) did it, the debate about his innocence/guilt has been raging on and off ever since. Then he also went and died a tad suspiciously, but that's beside the point.

Initially, I never thought twice about his guilt/innocence, as all renowned media seemed convinced of CPs guilt. Then I started reading about the case, and realised just how incompetent our police were in handling such a huge case, the numerous holes in the investigation, leads never followed, changing witness accounts, and so on.

Reading up on it again, a few years later, I don't know what conclusion I'd make of it (there's really not much at all to think of it, as the investigation is so amateurish it's actually quite sad).

But there's one thing that comes to mind: at least it would be understandable if someone hired a guy to kill Palme (after all, rightwingers in Sweden, at the time, were terrified that Palme would sell us out to Soviet). He was a nuisance- even to the US (albeit a minor one).

What I do NOT do, though, after hundreds of hours logged into it, is to go around saying I DO know what happened. All I know for a fact is that the investigation is a joke.

For my Palme murder interest, I've sometimes been called a CT. I just wanted to know as much as I could, and I find just about any of the three main theories plausible. But as there are no actual evidence either way, I can only state that "it's right that Pettersson got acquitted".

For teh Palme murder and say the Kennedy murder, I could think of a number of reasons as to why any organisation would have wanted them killed (we all know the easiest answer: teh jooos).

As for the US government to pull off 9/11, now... that's just... crazy on an entirely new level.

I can understand why anyone takes an interest in either one of the subjects listed above, but I suppose people do it for very differing reasons. As for the hardcore 9/11 CTers, their rhetoric is no better than that of Jim Jones. They want to believe.

...

I know! It's all David Duchovny's fault!

[Oliver]

Here is some of the Time article
Yet here is the Scripps poll
Not sure where this 36% crap keeps coming from? Could it be this?
The last is a far cry from the CT crowd nonsense. No one but 6% seem sure of the CT story, and that's not a BIG surprise!


My experiences so far with these people are:

1. They dont like something about the government.
2. They are afraid of Illuminati, Freemansons, Aliens or whatever "and now the NWO!"
3. They tolerate and support the theories for a "patriot movement", whatever this is.
4. They are unsure, have nothing they can believe in and join this crap to have anything.
5. They are JREF-Spys who laugh their asses off about them. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107452199491b45d.gif
6. It´s their business and they make a lot of money.
7. And the smallest amount i met so far belives in this Crap.

Cheers,
Oliver

[Muckar-duva]

In Sweden, as far as I can see, the CTers are usually radical leftists, young males, who hate everything about the US. Plus your usual assortment of "TEH JEWS DID IT!".

But mostly, they're people who don't believe in a radical islamist movement at all. Because that's all made up by capitalist westerners.

[G-K-4]

As for the hardcore 9/11 CTers, their rhetoric is no better than that of Jim Jones. They want to believe.
Jim or Alex? I just want to make sure you wrote what you intended to write.

In either case, I think the metaphor of "drinking the Kool-Aid" applies. :rolleyes:

[Muckar-duva]

Jim or Alex? I just want to make sure you wrote what you intended to write.

In either case, I think the metaphor of "drinking the Kool-Aid" applies. :rolleyes:
Both, but you're using a tad of CT rhetoric.

[alexg]

I saw a CT start to take hold of my son. Not the 911 CT, the moon landing CT. Keep in mind he is very smart (1500 on SAT, no prep) but he is very immature emotionally and he's also your classic angry young man with a real disdain for authority. His political thinking is terribly naive, much as mine was up until about the age of 27.

I told him how I had researched the moon landing CT and had found a point by point debunking on the web that answered every question raised by the CT and I told him those points as he raised his questions. After a few days he let go of it and now believes the landing was real.

I asked him how he felt about the 911 CT and his answer was telling, he said, "I really WANT to believe it, man, how I wish it were true . . .but I don't think theyd be smart enough to pull it off"

This whole episode with him is what got me interested in CTs. I was very thankfull that I still had enough sway with him that my efforts seemed to work.

[Elizabeth I]

It confirms for them that life's problems can't all be laid at one's own doorstep. It helps them remove the obligation of personal responsibility.

If the government (or Illuminati, or Star Chamber, or whatever) can be found responsible for horrible things we had no idea "they" were doing, then what other horrible things have "they" done which could explain why my life is in the crapper through no fault of my own?

Also it eliminates the possibility of horrible accident and the idea that you can die simply because you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If it's all somebody else's fault and they have a specific aim in mind, then you can die or be injured only if you have something (however unreasonable and tenuous the link may be) to do with that plan.

[Toro]

I believe, at least partly, it is because they are weak minded.

I don't mean that as an insult necessarily, rather that they would rather believe fantastical scenarios rather than deal with the mundane, the tragic, the unknowable, etc. Its easier to concot a weird story to explain the unexplainable.

[Muckar-duva]

I also think it can be more reassuring to live in a world where any emergency response gone wrong isn't because people fail/make mistakes/aren't prepared or coordinated enough to do the best possible job, but where every official mistake is calculated and planned.

That way, your country is still run by competent, smart people with a slick organization, incapable of making mistakes. Sure, they're murderous and evil, but at least they know what they do every step of the way.

[tsig]

I believe, at least partly, it is because they are weak minded.

I don't mean that as an insult necessarily, rather that they would rather believe fantastical scenarios rather than deal with the mundane, the tragic, the unknowable, etc. Its easier to concot a weird story to explain the unexplainable.

It is hard to think that a lot of people want you dead.

[G-K-4]

That way, your country is still run by competent, smart people with a slick organization, incapable of making mistakes. Sure, they're murderous and evil, but at least they know what they do every step of the way.
And the next step in this belief is that "If we could just get rid of those Evil people, and replace them with Good people, why we'd be in a veritable paradise, wouldn't we?"

[0oTITANo0]

Its a need to feel like the world is planned and someone somewhere is just going down the list following the plan. I believe that its the same basic need to believe in a God. To my mind "This is God's plan." is the same thing as "The Gov't controlls everything." They are identical, its simply a matter of exchanging the concept of one "infallible" authority for another.

There are some subtle differences in the way these believers behave. For instance they investigate to determine who is responsible or whatever. i'm not sure why when it always sounds like knowing too much would get you killed. Maybe they get a sense of importance when they thing that they are investigating something of national or global importance. In that sense, maybe its more appealing than religion because you get to be a more active participant.

[SwissSkeptic]

I think the explanation could be pretty similar to why people believe in all kinds of magical thinking. It starts out with the typical human predisposition for seeing patterns where there are none, coupled with wishful (or in the case of the CTists paranoid) thinking. From that point on it's confirmation bias, circular logic and turtles all the way down.

ETA: From the first link in a Google Scholar search:

A survey of 348 residents of southwestern New Jersey showed that most believed that several of a list of ten conspiracy theories were at least probably true. People who believed in one conspiracy were more likely to also believe in others. Belief in conspiracies was correlated with anomia, lack of interpersonal trust, and insecurity about employment. Black and hispanic respondents were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories than were white respondents. Young people were slightly more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, but there were few significant correlations with gender, educational level, or occupational category.
(emphasis mine)

From: Ted Goertzel: Belief in Conspiracy Theories (published in Political Psychology 15: 733-744, 1994) (http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/conspire.doc)

More results here (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=conspiracy+theories&hl=de&lr=&btnG=Suche&lr=)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Consider also, many CTists view mainstream media as being nothing more than propoganda machines for the bad guys. They (the CTists) therefore look to "independent" media outlets for their info. They end up going to indymedi.org, AFP, etc and assume that their information is more accurate only on the basis that they are not part of the MSM. This opens the CTists up to the propoganda/agenda that the "independent" media outlets may, or may not, have.

[Oliver]

Consider also, many CTists view mainstream media as being nothing more than propoganda machines for the bad guys. They (the CTists) therefore look to "independent" media outlets for their info. They end up going to indymedi.org, AFP, etc and assume that their information is more accurate only on the basis that they are not part of the MSM. This opens the CTists up to the propoganda/agenda that the "independent" media outlets may, or may not, have.

Yes - and when they have problems to explain their theories, they point to the exact same "propaganda Media" and say: "Look, Fox,MSN,ABC... said this, so (in this case) it must be true. Argh. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107452129a890f55.gif