Profile of CTists

Luciana · 17th August 2006, 11:13 AM

Recently I had a bitter altercation with a guy who frequents a mailing list that I also participate in. I've known this guy for about 10 years, though he's never been more than an acquaintance.

He insists that the military dictatorship in Brazil in the 60s and 70s was a period of economic development, progress and order. Nevermind that this progress set the stage for stagnation in the 80s, nevermind that 300 people "disappeared", that civil rights were trampled and that censorship was rampant. Nothing of that happened, this is just communist propaganda, you see.

I have realized that the Holocaust deniers are breeding, or that at least some of their justifications are being incorporated into other kinds of denials internationally.

You know the drill - no amount of evidence, including documents, testimonies from both side, torture cells, etc., will ever convince him otherwise.

I got fed up enough that, for a while, it was decided that politics shouldn't be discussed in that mailing list. That made me even more fed up, so that after much fighting it was decided by the majority that this particular subject should be avoided. It's one way of finding harmony - he is well-liked, but everybody expressed disgust over his views. So we agreed to throw that aspect of his personality under the carpet, let's see how it goes.

But more than ever it led me to think: who are those conspiracy theorists? Mostly male, I presume? Do you think inferiority complex plays a part, in that they empathize with the least regarded theories, or could it be instead a huge ego, so that they know more than everybody?

Has there ever been a case of a conspiracy theorist that relented, that is, that accepted he was wrong?

Chances are some skeptics here believed in Roswell or some other nonsense. But after investigating the matter further, they decided they were wrong. Somehow, with CTists, just the contrary happens - when the evidence mounts, the more they are convinced of the contrary.

I have never been directly involved with a CTist, at least not until last week, so I'd like to hear more from those who are more acquainted with their mindset.

Yoink · 17th August 2006, 11:35 AM

I suspect that the vast majority of conspiracy theorists don't really "believe" their arguments. I mean, look at someone like Killtown: it's clear from his method of arguing on this forum that he's not like the guy at the end of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" desperately trying to alert an otherwise indifferent world to facts that he has good reason to believe. I assume he's an adolescent boy who enjoys feeling that he's not being "fooled" by the "Official Version." That his particular arguments are worthless clearly doesn't matter to him--he's sure that there's something bogus in what the "grown ups" tell him about the world ("Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is..." the siren song of all adolescents through history) so as long as he's casting doubt on it in general he's fighting the good fight.

But if you subtract the adolescents who feel self-important at being in on a secret ("you just don't get it, man!") that still leaves a remnant of true believers who present, I think, a more interesting challenge to rational refutation. The problem with most conspiracy theories is that they are, or can be made to be, internally coherent: that is, once you make the leap to saying "who knows how far their power extends?" (and that's a leap that all Conspiracy Theories ultimately depend upon), what can possibly count as counter-evidence to the Theory?

Take 911: if you start from the assumption that any and all counter-evidence is merely evidence of the government's nefarious power to corrupt the record, what could rationally convince you that this was not the case? The usual arguments are arguments for consistency (if the government had that power why is Dylan Avery allowed to live? If they are so omnicompetent, why did they leave all these supposed "smoking guns" around etc. etc.) but this is like arguing against religion on similar grounds (if God is good, why is there evil etc.)--the arguments are only convincing to people who have not already adopted the initial assumption. No one convinced of the existence of a loving God is troubled even slightly by the existence of evil: "God moves in mysterious ways..." Similarly, the 911 CTist can always assume wheels within wheels. Maybe the Govt. wants us to know that it has this power? Once you've swallowed the camel you're not going to strain at those kinds of gnats.

ferd burfle · 17th August 2006, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Luciana Nery

Chances are some skeptics here believed in Roswell or some other nonsense. But after investigating the matter further, they decided they were wrong. Somehow, with CTists, just the contrary happens - when the evidence mounts, the more they are convinced of the contrary.

I have never been directly involved with a CTist, at least not until last week, so I'd like to hear more from those who are more acquainted with their mindset.

Why do seemingly unrelated groups such as 911 deniers, fundamentalist xtians and French post-modernists all claim to be victims of/fighting against a conspiracy? Here's my simplistic take. When they perceive their views are not well-received by many, they face two possibilities:

1) I am a wingnut; my views are whack and therefore have little appeal
2) My views are reasonable and insightful and would be embraced by the masses if they were not being suppressed by the Illuminati/atheists/mainstream scientists

Invoking a CT is one way to avoid accepting option 1.

Ferd

Arkan_Wolfshade · 17th August 2006, 02:43 PM

The short, short version?

Quote:

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan

That said, after having been dealing with KT, DJLegacy2k1, et al for the last six months or so, I am definitely interested in reading some light psychology/sociology books on the general CT ideology.

Johnny Pixels · 17th August 2006, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

The short, short version? That said, after having been dealing with KT, DJLegacy2k1, et al for the last six months or so, I am definitely interested in reading some light psychology/sociology books on the general CT ideology.

I think that could be a very interesting read.Do you/anyone else know of any books that cover the subject well?

Arkan_Wolfshade · 17th August 2006, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Johnny Pixels

I think that could be a very interesting read.Do you/anyone else know of any books that cover the subject well?

I can't personally make any recommendations, but Amazon suggests the following:

Social Sciences:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/...0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

Current Events:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/...0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

Crime & Criminals:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/...0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

Politics:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/...0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

Stellafane · 17th August 2006, 02:51 PM

I honestly believe the ultimate core motivation for a CTist is a search for significance. I think the average CTist (if such a thing exists) is a person who for whatever reason feels a profound dissatisfaction with their life. So a CT appeals to them for two reasons: (1) It allows them to feel superior by being one of the enlightened persons "in the know" while the vast majority of us remain ignorant fools, and (2) It creates a handy scapegoat for all the problems and inadequacies the CTist has experienced in life, so that CTists can avoid accepting responsibility for their failures and blame it on these unseen "others" (Jews, commies, Neocons, the gubmint, what have you).

This may seen really narrow of me, but I do not believe that a well-adjusted, happy person who is reasonably satisfied with their life can ever become a CTist.

Arkan_Wolfshade · 17th August 2006, 02:55 PM

Don't discount the possibilities of paranoid schizophrenia either.

LashL · 17th August 2006, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Stellafane

I honestly believe the ultimate core motivation for a CTist is a search for significance. I think the average CTist (if such a thing exists) is a person who for whatever reason feels a profound dissatisfaction with their life. So a CT appeals to them for two reasons: (1) It allows them to feel superior by being one of the enlightened persons "in the know" while the vast majority of us remain ignorant fools, and (2) It creates a handy scapegoat for all the problems and inadequacies the CTist has experienced in life, so that CTists can avoid accepting responsibility for their failures and blame it on these unseen "others" (Jews, commies, Neocons, the gubmint, what have you).

This may seen really narrow of me, but I do not believe that a well-adjusted, happy person who is reasonably satisfied with their life can ever become a CTist.

I don't think that sounds narrow of you. While there may be a few exceptions (e.g. those who seek to lead a cult of unhappy, maladjusted people who are not happy with their lives, for reasons of money or fame or infamy, as it may be), but all in all, I think you've nailed it.

Cuddles · 18th August 2006, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by Stellafane

I honestly believe the ultimate core motivation for a CTist is a search for significance. I think the average CTist (if such a thing exists) is a person who for whatever reason feels a profound dissatisfaction with their life. So a CT appeals to them for two reasons: (1) It allows them to feel superior by being one of the enlightened persons "in the know" while the vast majority of us remain ignorant fools, and (2) It creates a handy scapegoat for all the problems and inadequacies the CTist has experienced in life, so that CTists can avoid accepting responsibility for their failures and blame it on these unseen "others" (Jews, commies, Neocons, the gubmint, what have you).

This may seen really narrow of me, but I do not believe that a well-adjusted, happy person who is reasonably satisfied with their life can ever become a CTist.

I agree with this. I see very little difference between those that believe "the government did it" and those that believe "God did it". It follows from that reasoning that anything wrong with their lives is due to some higher power and therefore not their fault.

Correa Neto · 18th August 2006, 06:40 AM

Well, my boss is -almost- rational and believes in a number of CTs and other fringe subjects such as lost advanced civilizations from before the Ice Ages and aliens among us. I had a lot of fun debunking such stuff at beer talks. 9/11 CT was specially easy due to these forums.

The way I see it, some people adopt CTs because they just have problems in accepting things can run so much out of controll and so easilly. There must be, in their views, some justifications, something else that will provide a meaning, and in some cases, someone to blame. Also the need of "knowing something else". Not unlike the reasons why some people seek esoteric "secret societies".

Note: As prime evidence of his -almost- rationality, I submit the fact that he employed me and likes my work. If this weights pro or con his rationality, I leave to the reader's decision...

Darth Rotor · 18th August 2006, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by Luciana Nery

I have never been directly involved with a CTist, at least not until last week, so I'd like to hear more from those who are more acquainted with their mindset.

I seem to recall the following logically sound statement: just because you are paranoid, it doesn't necessarily mean they aren't out to get you.

Beyond paranoia and the unreasoned fear that one is not in control, a CT approach to a topic seems rooted in the fact that human behavior includes the penchant for pulling a fast one on one's fellow humans, for misdirection to disguise true aims, for ruses, for false advertising, and for out and out fraud.

It also relates to those in positions of power wishing to sustain that position, either overtly or covertly.

DR

Brainache · 18th August 2006, 07:34 AM

The world of 9/11 CTs is relatively new to me, but as an adolescent I lapped up stories of UFOs and Bigfoot and The Loch Ness Monster etc. Eventually I grew up and realised it was just wishful thinking. I wanted magic and monsters to be real, but wanting it so doesn't make it so.

Later I read of the Illuminati, the Club Of Rome, The Elders Of Zion etc. It seemed feasible at the time, but only until I started to really think hard about the implications.

A secret society that could control the direction of civilisation over the course of centuries? They must be pretty strange people(or space lizards, whatever) if the world we are living in now is the result of their plans.

It only takes a small amount of history study to realise that the complex interactions of states, individuals and corporations etc( in the 20th century alone) are driven by many different competing interests and blind chance. To suppose those interactions were driven by one small group of shady businessmen is ludicrous.

But it is that ludicrous supposition that hides behind a lot, if not all, of these 9/11 CTs.

Why would anyone subscribe to such a way of thinking? Is it comforting to think that someone somewhere is actually in control? That maybe one day if I get all the answers, I too might join that secret society? Then I'll show 'em!

Well I don't know, I'm not a psychologist or a sociologist. I'm not even much of a typist.
I'm Just Asking Questions...

Darth Rotor · 18th August 2006, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Brainache

A secret society that could control the direction of civilisation over the course of centuries?

Sure, like the Catholic Church did overtly. It is possible that a quietly effective group of people operating as "powers behind the throne" and "advisors to the King" could influence, if not control, a great deal of policy making.

The hard part is effectively passing that legacy, talent, and the connections to do that generation after generation. Blood lines often fail, and inter family squabbles can wreck a plot or plan.

DR

Cuddles · 18th August 2006, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Sure, like the Catholic Church did overtly. It is possible that a quietly effective group of people operating as "powers behind the throne" and "advisors to the King" could influence, if not control, a great deal of policy making.

The hard part is effectively passing that legacy, talent, and the connections to do that generation after generation. Blood lines often fail, and inter family squabbles can wreck a plot or plan.

DR

I'd say the main problem with the Illuminati idea is getting the sort of people that would do that to actually agree with each other. The idea behind many vampire stories is that the vampires try to do an Illuminati-style rule, but spend all their time fighting each other and so humans carry on as usual. I can't imagine it would be any different with a group of power-mad humans.

defaultdotxbe · 18th August 2006, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Sure, like the Catholic Church did overtly. It is possible that a quietly effective group of people operating as "powers behind the throne" and "advisors to the King" could influence, if not control, a great deal of policy making.

The hard part is effectively passing that legacy, talent, and the connections to do that generation after generation. Blood lines often fail, and inter family squabbles can wreck a plot or plan.

DR

well that was fine in a monarchy, because the power was already consolidated and you only had to influence one person, its alot different in the age of democracy when you would have to exert influence on entire congresses and parliaments

Darth Rotor · 18th August 2006, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

well that was fine in a monarchy, because the power was already consolidated and you only had to influence one person, its alot different in the age of democracy when you would have to exert influence on entire congresses and parliaments

Powerful families, or at least very rich families, as well as networks, are a common standard of American Industrial age public influence pedalling. Some is by lobbying and access pedalling, some by the myriad of associations and clubs people belong to, and so on.

In Washington, the think tank business has been booming for some decades. These guys have a purpose in life: to convince various policy makers that their argument is the best one, and the best way ahead.

DR

defaultdotxbe · 18th August 2006, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

In Washington, the think tank business has been booming for some decades. These guys have a purpose in life: to convince various policy makers that their argument is the best one, and the best way ahead.

DR

true, im just stating that its more difficult to get 535 members of congress to agree on soemthing than it is to get one king to do soemthing

Stellafane · 18th August 2006, 02:43 PM

I think it's interesting to note that the 9/11 CTists who have spent significant time on this board, in my opinion, very consistently display some or all of the following traits:

Lack of critical thinking skills
Lack of intelligence (harsh, but I honestly can't think of a single exception)
Intellectual dishonesty (and I wouldn't argue the removal of "intellectual")
Arrogant
Unwilling/unable to consider evidence that contradicts their CT
Immature

I know that's not a very complimentary list. But when you consider some of the 9/11 CTists who have been active on this board (sbrown, geggy, seekthetruth, killtown, cristophera, muttonhead, djlegacy, et al), I think it's an arguably accurate one.

Arkan_Wolfshade · 18th August 2006, 03:19 PM

None of them will make a statement of what evidence would change their conclusions. They have about a 95% (w.a.g.) rate of refusing to retract statements that have been shown to be demonstratably wrong.

defaultdotxbe · 18th August 2006, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

None of them will make a statement of what evidence would change their conclusions.

they view that sort of thing as weakness, unfortunately the rest of the world sees it as scientific skepticism

jon · 18th August 2006, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

The short, short version? That said, after having been dealing with KT, DJLegacy2k1, et al for the last six months or so, I am definitely interested in reading some light psychology/sociology books on the general CT ideology.

It's a work of fiction, and based around a mediaeval conspiracy, but Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum is still a brilliant account of the 'logic' through which these conspiracies can function...and very funny

Not a book, but free online, is the Der Spiegal article on conspiracy theory - http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...5160-2,00.html - is interesting for its analysis, and the authors' attempts to get to grips with how the CTers create their 'facts' and insulate them from falsification.

Jon Ronson's book on staring at goats (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0...teway&v=glance) is largely about woo/CT within the military, and is very well-written and pretty well researched.

So, no suggestions of what you want. But I enjoyed reading both, anyway, and enjoy talking about books

defaultdotxbe · 18th August 2006, 04:16 PM

Confusion

Inability to make decisions

Hallucinations

Changes in eating or sleeping habits, energy level, or weight

Delusions

Nervousness

Strange statements or behavior

Withdrawal from friends, work, or school

Neglect of personal hygiene

Anger

Indifference to the opinions of others

A tendency to argue

A conviction that you are better than others, or that people are out to get you

Sword_Of_Truth · 18th August 2006, 04:23 PM

Speaking of "profiling", is it just a coincidence that most of the leaders of the conspiracists come from the same demographic as serial killers?

Alex Jones, James Fetzer, Steve Jones, Charlie Sheen, Eric Hufschmid, Jimmy Walker... all middle aged white males.

Sheen is an actual sexual deviant as well. We may need to watch these guys.

apathoid · 18th August 2006, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

The short, short version? That said, after having been dealing with KT, DJLegacy2k1, et al for the last six months or so, I am definitely interested in reading some light psychology/sociology books on the general CT ideology.

I'm fascinated with them as well. Clearly, they dont function like normal people upstairs. I would be very interested to know why...

When I first started engaging CTers on the United 93 board a few months ago, I could only feel sorry for them. No other emotions, just pity. However, that didnt last long as their total lack of any common deceny started showing, along with other very negative traits.
I still cant get too angry with them even though I no longer feel sorry for them. Something in me says that most CTers are the dregs of society, people(apart from the young and rebellious CTers - I used to be one) who really won't ever be a positive member of society. I cant imagine folks like chuckseed or johnd'oh leading relatively normal lives, they can choose to do it, but choose not to. Why is that?
Surely someone has a doctoral essay on this subject, I'll be on the lookout for it.

Luciana · 18th August 2006, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Stellafane

Lack of critical thinking skills
Lack of intelligence (harsh, but I honestly can't think of a single exception)
Intellectual dishonesty (and I wouldn't argue the removal of "intellectual")
Arrogant
Unwilling/unable to consider evidence that contradicts their CT
Immature

Very good list. Off topic, but I'd say those traits above are also shared by some, if not most, white supremacists. But chances are those groups overlap occasionally.

Immature in that so much of their egos depend on their being right.

I thought of suggesting "capacity for nastiness", but then I remembered most believers are capable of that also, and then I thought that even skeptics carry this trait to some extent. Oh, well.

Lack of intelligence is one I'm not so sure about. I think they are intelligent, but not enough to grasp logic and to admit their own fallacious thinking. I think it's only because some use their intelligence to support their beliefs, not for challenging those.

Luciana · 18th August 2006, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by ferd burfle

1) I am a wingnut; my views are whack and therefore have little appeal
2) My views are reasonable and insightful and would be embraced by the masses if they were not being suppressed by the Illuminati/atheists/mainstream scientists

I remember my first course in Linguistics. The professor recommended a chapter where it was discussed what "language" meant. One definition, and I found that brilliant. Then, next, a criticism of it. A very incomplete definition, now that I think about it. The second definition was more complete, and solved some of the problems mentioned earlier, and I thought that one, indeed, was the most adequate one. A third definition was next and it was excellent, so simple and yet profound.

So about ten definitions of language were given, and finally the author agreed to one, but still left room for debate.

I will never forget that text because, step by step, I had to examine my own lack of insight, lack of knowledge, my own naiveté regarding that matter. It was a wonderful ride! It was like a magic show where you're fooled in each act, and you like it! I was laughing at myself in the end.

I think I would have a CTist mentality if, upon reading the first definition and liking it, I couldn't admit to being a fool and getting angry with all the subsequent debate. Ego on the way. Who knows.

Stellafane · 19th August 2006, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by Luciana Nery

...Lack of intelligence is one I'm not so sure about. I think they are intelligent, but not enough to grasp logic and to admit their own fallacious thinking. I think it's only because some use their intelligence to support their beliefs, not for challenging those.

In the overall CTist community, no doubt there are intelligent individuals. When I compiled my list, I was thinking of those CTists who have come here to this forum to promote their views (or do whatever other things they believe they're doing). And within that small sample, I must say intelligence doesn't exactly leap from the corpus of their content. Then again, the sample may be invalid -- perhaps anyone with real intelligence would know better than come here in the first place.

17th August 2006, 11:13 AM	#1
Luciana Skeptical Carioca Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,952	Profile of CTists Recently I had a bitter altercation with a guy who frequents a mailing list that I also participate in. I've known this guy for about 10 years, though he's never been more than an acquaintance. He insists that the military dictatorship in Brazil in the 60s and 70s was a period of economic development, progress and order. Nevermind that this progress set the stage for stagnation in the 80s, nevermind that 300 people "disappeared", that civil rights were trampled and that censorship was rampant. Nothing of that happened, this is just communist propaganda, you see. I have realized that the Holocaust deniers are breeding, or that at least some of their justifications are being incorporated into other kinds of denials internationally. You know the drill - no amount of evidence, including documents, testimonies from both side, torture cells, etc., will ever convince him otherwise. I got fed up enough that, for a while, it was decided that politics shouldn't be discussed in that mailing list. That made me even more fed up, so that after much fighting it was decided by the majority that this particular subject should be avoided. It's one way of finding harmony - he is well-liked, but everybody expressed disgust over his views. So we agreed to throw that aspect of his personality under the carpet, let's see how it goes. But more than ever it led me to think: who are those conspiracy theorists? Mostly male, I presume? Do you think inferiority complex plays a part, in that they empathize with the least regarded theories, or could it be instead a huge ego, so that they know more than everybody? Has there ever been a case of a conspiracy theorist that relented, that is, that accepted he was wrong? Chances are some skeptics here believed in Roswell or some other nonsense. But after investigating the matter further, they decided they were wrong. Somehow, with CTists, just the contrary happens - when the evidence mounts, the more they are convinced of the contrary. I have never been directly involved with a CTist, at least not until last week, so I'd like to hear more from those who are more acquainted with their mindset.
	__________________ Regards, Luciana

17th August 2006, 11:35 AM	#2
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937	I suspect that the vast majority of conspiracy theorists don't really "believe" their arguments. I mean, look at someone like Killtown: it's clear from his method of arguing on this forum that he's not like the guy at the end of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" desperately trying to alert an otherwise indifferent world to facts that he has good reason to believe. I assume he's an adolescent boy who enjoys feeling that he's not being "fooled" by the "Official Version." That his particular arguments are worthless clearly doesn't matter to him--he's sure that there's something bogus in what the "grown ups" tell him about the world ("Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is..." the siren song of all adolescents through history) so as long as he's casting doubt on it in general he's fighting the good fight. But if you subtract the adolescents who feel self-important at being in on a secret ("you just don't get it, man!") that still leaves a remnant of true believers who present, I think, a more interesting challenge to rational refutation. The problem with most conspiracy theories is that they are, or can be made to be, internally coherent: that is, once you make the leap to saying "who knows how far their power extends?" (and that's a leap that all Conspiracy Theories ultimately depend upon), what can possibly count as counter-evidence to the Theory? Take 911: if you start from the assumption that any and all counter-evidence is merely evidence of the government's nefarious power to corrupt the record, what could rationally convince you that this was not the case? The usual arguments are arguments for consistency (if the government had that power why is Dylan Avery allowed to live? If they are so omnicompetent, why did they leave all these supposed "smoking guns" around etc. etc.) but this is like arguing against religion on similar grounds (if God is good, why is there evil etc.)--the arguments are only convincing to people who have not already adopted the initial assumption. No one convinced of the existence of a loving God is troubled even slightly by the existence of evil: "God moves in mysterious ways..." Similarly, the 911 CTist can always assume wheels within wheels. Maybe the Govt. wants us to know that it has this power? Once you've swallowed the camel you're not going to strain at those kinds of gnats.
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937

17th August 2006, 12:14 PM	#3
ferd burfle Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli Posts: 346	Originally Posted by Luciana Nery Chances are some skeptics here believed in Roswell or some other nonsense. But after investigating the matter further, they decided they were wrong. Somehow, with CTists, just the contrary happens - when the evidence mounts, the more they are convinced of the contrary. I have never been directly involved with a CTist, at least not until last week, so I'd like to hear more from those who are more acquainted with their mindset. Why do seemingly unrelated groups such as 911 deniers, fundamentalist xtians and French post-modernists all claim to be victims of/fighting against a conspiracy? Here's my simplistic take. When they perceive their views are not well-received by many, they face two possibilities: 1) I am a wingnut; my views are whack and therefore have little appeal 2) My views are reasonable and insightful and would be embraced by the masses if they were not being suppressed by the Illuminati/atheists/mainstream scientists Invoking a CT is one way to avoid accepting option 1. Ferd
	__________________ Paranoia...(is) fundamentally egocentric, and every conspiracy theory serves in some way to aggrandize the believer---William Gibson, Zero History

17th August 2006, 02:43 PM	#4
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Making Mytheon come to life Posts: 7,158	The short, short version? Quote: But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Carl Sagan That said, after having been dealing with KT, DJLegacy2k1, et al for the last six months or so, I am definitely interested in reading some light psychology/sociology books on the general CT ideology.
	__________________ Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc. Bender: I am forty percent zinc. Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort. Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.

17th August 2006, 02:45 PM	#5
Johnny Pixels and The Electric Revolution Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade The short, short version? That said, after having been dealing with KT, DJLegacy2k1, et al for the last six months or so, I am definitely interested in reading some light psychology/sociology books on the general CT ideology. I think that could be a very interesting read.Do you/anyone else know of any books that cover the subject well?
	__________________ "Now, cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good, When the levee breaks, mama, you got to move" The revolution needs YOU! www.stopsylvia.com

17th August 2006, 02:50 PM	#6
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Making Mytheon come to life Posts: 7,158	Originally Posted by Johnny Pixels I think that could be a very interesting read.Do you/anyone else know of any books that cover the subject well? I can't personally make any recommendations, but Amazon suggests the following: Social Sciences: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/...0&Go.y=0&Go=Go Current Events: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/...0&Go.y=0&Go=Go Crime & Criminals: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/...0&Go.y=0&Go=Go Politics: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/...0&Go.y=0&Go=Go
	__________________ Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc. Bender: I am forty percent zinc. Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort. Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.

17th August 2006, 02:51 PM	#7
Stellafane Village Idiot. Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Green Mountains Posts: 6,266	I honestly believe the ultimate core motivation for a CTist is a search for significance. I think the average CTist (if such a thing exists) is a person who for whatever reason feels a profound dissatisfaction with their life. So a CT appeals to them for two reasons: (1) It allows them to feel superior by being one of the enlightened persons "in the know" while the vast majority of us remain ignorant fools, and (2) It creates a handy scapegoat for all the problems and inadequacies the CTist has experienced in life, so that CTists can avoid accepting responsibility for their failures and blame it on these unseen "others" (Jews, commies, Neocons, the gubmint, what have you). This may seen really narrow of me, but I do not believe that a well-adjusted, happy person who is reasonably satisfied with their life can ever become a CTist.

17th August 2006, 02:55 PM	#8
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Making Mytheon come to life Posts: 7,158	Don't discount the possibilities of paranoid schizophrenia either.
	__________________ Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc. Bender: I am forty percent zinc. Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort. Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.

17th August 2006, 10:12 PM	#9
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,180	Originally Posted by Stellafane I honestly believe the ultimate core motivation for a CTist is a search for significance. I think the average CTist (if such a thing exists) is a person who for whatever reason feels a profound dissatisfaction with their life. So a CT appeals to them for two reasons: (1) It allows them to feel superior by being one of the enlightened persons "in the know" while the vast majority of us remain ignorant fools, and (2) It creates a handy scapegoat for all the problems and inadequacies the CTist has experienced in life, so that CTists can avoid accepting responsibility for their failures and blame it on these unseen "others" (Jews, commies, Neocons, the gubmint, what have you). This may seen really narrow of me, but I do not believe that a well-adjusted, happy person who is reasonably satisfied with their life can ever become a CTist. I don't think that sounds narrow of you. While there may be a few exceptions (e.g. those who seek to lead a cult of unhappy, maladjusted people who are not happy with their lives, for reasons of money or fame or infamy, as it may be), but all in all, I think you've nailed it.

18th August 2006, 06:30 AM	#10
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,566	Originally Posted by Stellafane I honestly believe the ultimate core motivation for a CTist is a search for significance. I think the average CTist (if such a thing exists) is a person who for whatever reason feels a profound dissatisfaction with their life. So a CT appeals to them for two reasons: (1) It allows them to feel superior by being one of the enlightened persons "in the know" while the vast majority of us remain ignorant fools, and (2) It creates a handy scapegoat for all the problems and inadequacies the CTist has experienced in life, so that CTists can avoid accepting responsibility for their failures and blame it on these unseen "others" (Jews, commies, Neocons, the gubmint, what have you). This may seen really narrow of me, but I do not believe that a well-adjusted, happy person who is reasonably satisfied with their life can ever become a CTist. I agree with this. I see very little difference between those that believe "the government did it" and those that believe "God did it". It follows from that reasoning that anything wrong with their lives is due to some higher power and therefore not their fault.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

18th August 2006, 06:40 AM	#11
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,170	Well, my boss is -almost- rational and believes in a number of CTs and other fringe subjects such as lost advanced civilizations from before the Ice Ages and aliens among us. I had a lot of fun debunking such stuff at beer talks. 9/11 CT was specially easy due to these forums. The way I see it, some people adopt CTs because they just have problems in accepting things can run so much out of controll and so easilly. There must be, in their views, some justifications, something else that will provide a meaning, and in some cases, someone to blame. Also the need of "knowing something else". Not unlike the reasons why some people seek esoteric "secret societies". Note: As prime evidence of his -almost- rationality, I submit the fact that he employed me and likes my work. If this weights pro or con his rationality, I leave to the reader's decision...
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

18th August 2006, 06:57 AM	#12
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,260	Originally Posted by Luciana Nery I have never been directly involved with a CTist, at least not until last week, so I'd like to hear more from those who are more acquainted with their mindset. I seem to recall the following logically sound statement: just because you are paranoid, it doesn't necessarily mean they aren't out to get you. Beyond paranoia and the unreasoned fear that one is not in control, a CT approach to a topic seems rooted in the fact that human behavior includes the penchant for pulling a fast one on one's fellow humans, for misdirection to disguise true aims, for ruses, for false advertising, and for out and out fraud. It also relates to those in positions of power wishing to sustain that position, either overtly or covertly. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

18th August 2006, 07:34 AM	#13
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Knob Hill. Posts: 9,086	The world of 9/11 CTs is relatively new to me, but as an adolescent I lapped up stories of UFOs and Bigfoot and The Loch Ness Monster etc. Eventually I grew up and realised it was just wishful thinking. I wanted magic and monsters to be real, but wanting it so doesn't make it so. Later I read of the Illuminati, the Club Of Rome, The Elders Of Zion etc. It seemed feasible at the time, but only until I started to really think hard about the implications. A secret society that could control the direction of civilisation over the course of centuries? They must be pretty strange people(or space lizards, whatever) if the world we are living in now is the result of their plans. It only takes a small amount of history study to realise that the complex interactions of states, individuals and corporations etc( in the 20th century alone) are driven by many different competing interests and blind chance. To suppose those interactions were driven by one small group of shady businessmen is ludicrous. But it is that ludicrous supposition that hides behind a lot, if not all, of these 9/11 CTs. Why would anyone subscribe to such a way of thinking? Is it comforting to think that someone somewhere is actually in control? That maybe one day if I get all the answers, I too might join that secret society? Then I'll show 'em! Well I don't know, I'm not a psychologist or a sociologist. I'm not even much of a typist. I'm Just Asking Questions...
	Last edited by Brainache; 18th August 2006 at 07:37 AM. Reason: trying to improve signal/noise ratio.

18th August 2006, 08:21 AM	#14
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,260	Originally Posted by Brainache A secret society that could control the direction of civilisation over the course of centuries? Sure, like the Catholic Church did overtly. It is possible that a quietly effective group of people operating as "powers behind the throne" and "advisors to the King" could influence, if not control, a great deal of policy making. The hard part is effectively passing that legacy, talent, and the connections to do that generation after generation. Blood lines often fail, and inter family squabbles can wreck a plot or plan. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

18th August 2006, 08:36 AM	#15
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,566	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Sure, like the Catholic Church did overtly. It is possible that a quietly effective group of people operating as "powers behind the throne" and "advisors to the King" could influence, if not control, a great deal of policy making. The hard part is effectively passing that legacy, talent, and the connections to do that generation after generation. Blood lines often fail, and inter family squabbles can wreck a plot or plan. DR I'd say the main problem with the Illuminati idea is getting the sort of people that would do that to actually agree with each other. The idea behind many vampire stories is that the vampires try to do an Illuminati-style rule, but spend all their time fighting each other and so humans carry on as usual. I can't imagine it would be any different with a group of power-mad humans.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

18th August 2006, 01:14 PM	#16
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Sure, like the Catholic Church did overtly. It is possible that a quietly effective group of people operating as "powers behind the throne" and "advisors to the King" could influence, if not control, a great deal of policy making. The hard part is effectively passing that legacy, talent, and the connections to do that generation after generation. Blood lines often fail, and inter family squabbles can wreck a plot or plan. DR well that was fine in a monarchy, because the power was already consolidated and you only had to influence one person, its alot different in the age of democracy when you would have to exert influence on entire congresses and parliaments
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

18th August 2006, 02:32 PM	#17
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,260	Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe well that was fine in a monarchy, because the power was already consolidated and you only had to influence one person, its alot different in the age of democracy when you would have to exert influence on entire congresses and parliaments Powerful families, or at least very rich families, as well as networks, are a common standard of American Industrial age public influence pedalling. Some is by lobbying and access pedalling, some by the myriad of associations and clubs people belong to, and so on. In Washington, the think tank business has been booming for some decades. These guys have a purpose in life: to convince various policy makers that their argument is the best one, and the best way ahead. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

18th August 2006, 02:38 PM	#18
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor In Washington, the think tank business has been booming for some decades. These guys have a purpose in life: to convince various policy makers that their argument is the best one, and the best way ahead. DR true, im just stating that its more difficult to get 535 members of congress to agree on soemthing than it is to get one king to do soemthing
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

18th August 2006, 02:43 PM	#19
Stellafane Village Idiot. Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Green Mountains Posts: 6,266	I think it's interesting to note that the 9/11 CTists who have spent significant time on this board, in my opinion, very consistently display some or all of the following traits: Lack of critical thinking skills Lack of intelligence (harsh, but I honestly can't think of a single exception) Intellectual dishonesty (and I wouldn't argue the removal of "intellectual") Arrogant Unwilling/unable to consider evidence that contradicts their CT Immature I know that's not a very complimentary list. But when you consider some of the 9/11 CTists who have been active on this board (sbrown, geggy, seekthetruth, killtown, cristophera, muttonhead, djlegacy, et al), I think it's an arguably accurate one.

18th August 2006, 03:19 PM	#20
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Making Mytheon come to life Posts: 7,158	None of them will make a statement of what evidence would change their conclusions. They have about a 95% (w.a.g.) rate of refusing to retract statements that have been shown to be demonstratably wrong.
	__________________ Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc. Bender: I am forty percent zinc. Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort. Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.

18th August 2006, 03:35 PM	#21
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade None of them will make a statement of what evidence would change their conclusions. they view that sort of thing as weakness, unfortunately the rest of the world sees it as scientific skepticism
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

18th August 2006, 04:05 PM	#22
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 923	Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade The short, short version? That said, after having been dealing with KT, DJLegacy2k1, et al for the last six months or so, I am definitely interested in reading some light psychology/sociology books on the general CT ideology. It's a work of fiction, and based around a mediaeval conspiracy, but Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum is still a brilliant account of the 'logic' through which these conspiracies can function...and very funny Not a book, but free online, is the Der Spiegal article on conspiracy theory - http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...5160-2,00.html - is interesting for its analysis, and the authors' attempts to get to grips with how the CTers create their 'facts' and insulate them from falsification. Jon Ronson's book on staring at goats (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0...teway&v=glance) is largely about woo/CT within the military, and is very well-written and pretty well researched. So, no suggestions of what you want. But I enjoyed reading both, anyway, and enjoy talking about books
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 923

18th August 2006, 04:16 PM	#23
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	Confusion Inability to make decisions Hallucinations Changes in eating or sleeping habits, energy level, or weight Delusions Nervousness Strange statements or behavior Withdrawal from friends, work, or school Neglect of personal hygiene Anger Indifference to the opinions of others A tendency to argue A conviction that you are better than others, or that people are out to get you
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

18th August 2006, 04:23 PM	#24
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Speaking of "profiling", is it just a coincidence that most of the leaders of the conspiracists come from the same demographic as serial killers? Alex Jones, James Fetzer, Steve Jones, Charlie Sheen, Eric Hufschmid, Jimmy Walker... all middle aged white males. Sheen is an actual sexual deviant as well. We may need to watch these guys.

18th August 2006, 04:37 PM	#25
apathoid Government Loyalist Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Virgo Supercluster Posts: 2,699	Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade The short, short version? That said, after having been dealing with KT, DJLegacy2k1, et al for the last six months or so, I am definitely interested in reading some light psychology/sociology books on the general CT ideology. I'm fascinated with them as well. Clearly, they dont function like normal people upstairs. I would be very interested to know why... When I first started engaging CTers on the United 93 board a few months ago, I could only feel sorry for them. No other emotions, just pity. However, that didnt last long as their total lack of any common deceny started showing, along with other very negative traits. I still cant get too angry with them even though I no longer feel sorry for them. Something in me says that most CTers are the dregs of society, people(apart from the young and rebellious CTers - I used to be one) who really won't ever be a positive member of society. I cant imagine folks like chuckseed or johnd'oh leading relatively normal lives, they can choose to do it, but choose not to. Why is that? Surely someone has a doctoral essay on this subject, I'll be on the lookout for it.

18th August 2006, 06:12 PM	#26
Luciana Skeptical Carioca Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,952	Originally Posted by Stellafane Lack of critical thinking skills Lack of intelligence (harsh, but I honestly can't think of a single exception) Intellectual dishonesty (and I wouldn't argue the removal of "intellectual") Arrogant Unwilling/unable to consider evidence that contradicts their CT Immature Very good list. Off topic, but I'd say those traits above are also shared by some, if not most, white supremacists. But chances are those groups overlap occasionally. Immature in that so much of their egos depend on their being right. I thought of suggesting "capacity for nastiness", but then I remembered most believers are capable of that also, and then I thought that even skeptics carry this trait to some extent. Oh, well. Lack of intelligence is one I'm not so sure about. I think they are intelligent, but not enough to grasp logic and to admit their own fallacious thinking. I think it's only because some use their intelligence to support their beliefs, not for challenging those.
	__________________ Regards, Luciana

18th August 2006, 06:26 PM	#27
Luciana Skeptical Carioca Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,952	Originally Posted by ferd burfle 1) I am a wingnut; my views are whack and therefore have little appeal 2) My views are reasonable and insightful and would be embraced by the masses if they were not being suppressed by the Illuminati/atheists/mainstream scientists I remember my first course in Linguistics. The professor recommended a chapter where it was discussed what "language" meant. One definition, and I found that brilliant. Then, next, a criticism of it. A very incomplete definition, now that I think about it. The second definition was more complete, and solved some of the problems mentioned earlier, and I thought that one, indeed, was the most adequate one. A third definition was next and it was excellent, so simple and yet profound. So about ten definitions of language were given, and finally the author agreed to one, but still left room for debate. I will never forget that text because, step by step, I had to examine my own lack of insight, lack of knowledge, my own naiveté regarding that matter. It was a wonderful ride! It was like a magic show where you're fooled in each act, and you like it! I was laughing at myself in the end. I think I would have a CTist mentality if, upon reading the first definition and liking it, I couldn't admit to being a fool and getting angry with all the subsequent debate. Ego on the way. Who knows.
	__________________ Regards, Luciana

19th August 2006, 05:32 AM	#28
Stellafane Village Idiot. Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Green Mountains Posts: 6,266	Originally Posted by Luciana Nery ...Lack of intelligence is one I'm not so sure about. I think they are intelligent, but not enough to grasp logic and to admit their own fallacious thinking. I think it's only because some use their intelligence to support their beliefs, not for challenging those. In the overall CTist community, no doubt there are intelligent individuals. When I compiled my list, I was thinking of those CTists who have come here to this forum to promote their views (or do whatever other things they believe they're doing). And within that small sample, I must say intelligence doesn't exactly leap from the corpus of their content. Then again, the sample may be invalid -- perhaps anyone with real intelligence would know better than come here in the first place.