Study finds anti-conspiracy theorists crazy and hostile in their beliefs

[onwebcam]

New studies: ?Conspiracy theorists? sane; government dupes crazy, hostile

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled ?conspiracy theorists? appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07...vs-govt-dupes/

[noshit]

They really didn't need a study to know that did they? It's pretty much obvious.

[deltav]

Ummm, the news site you link to who published this article is the Islamic Republic of Iran's state-regulated news channel.

And the dude who wrote the article is Kevin Barrett, a well-known conspiracy theorist.

It should be noted that the study mentioned is in no way favorable to conspiracy theorists either, nor does it paint them in a positive light... this is just one out-of-context & cherry picked quote.

[NaughtyVisions]

I never would have guessed. JohnnyClips seemed so well grounded in reality.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

ADG

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by noshit

They really didn't need a study to know that did they? It's pretty much obvious.

I guess they needed multiple since it's from multiple studies.

[BlackCrayon]

how about yoi respond to what deltav said

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by deltav

Ummm, the news site you link to who published this article is the Islamic Republic of Iran's state-regulated news channel.

And the dude who wrote the article is Kevin Barrett, a well-known conspiracy theorist.

It should be noted that the study mentioned is in no way favorable to conspiracy theorists either, nor does it paint them in a positive light... this is just one out-of-context & cherry picked quote.

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

how about yoi respond to what deltav said

I don't care who the messaenger is I just like the truthful message.

It's like we are right in the middle of the 1984 script these days with some people.

[BlackCrayon]

truthful to you because its what you want to hear.

[signupdamnit]

An open mind is healthy. Believing every conspiracy theory you hear isn't.

[Rochard]

They needed a study to know this? Duh.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by deltav

Ummm, the news site you link to who published this article is the Islamic Republic of Iran's state-regulated news channel.

And the dude who wrote the article is Kevin Barrett, a well-known conspiracy theorist.

It should be noted that the study mentioned is in no way favorable to conspiracy theorists either, nor does it paint them in a positive light... this is just one out-of-context & cherry picked quote.

http://www.frontiersin.org/personali...00409/abstract

“What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories
Michael J. Wood* and Karen M. Douglas*
School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
Recent research into the psychology of conspiracy belief has highlighted the importance of belief systems in the acceptance or rejection of conspiracy theories. We examined a large sample of conspiracist (pro-conspiracy-theory) and conventionalist (anti-conspiracy-theory) comments on news websites in order to investigate the relative importance of promoting alternative explanations vs. rejecting conventional explanations for events. In accordance with our hypotheses, we found that conspiracist commenters were more likely to argue against the opposing interpretation and less likely to argue in favor of their own interpretation, while the opposite was true of conventionalist commenters. However, conspiracist comments were more likely to explicitly put forward an account than conventionalist comments were. In addition, conspiracists were more likely to express mistrust and made more positive and fewer negative references to other conspiracy theories. The data also indicate that conspiracists were largely unwilling to apply the “conspiracy theory” label to their own beliefs and objected when others did so, lending support to the long-held suggestion that conspiracy belief carries a social stigma. Finally, conventionalist arguments tended to have a more hostile tone. These tendencies in persuasive communication can be understood as a reflection of an underlying conspiracist worldview in which the details of individual conspiracy theories are less important than a generalized rejection of official explanations.

Here you go.. without the dreaded '.ir' so you can actually read it

[theking]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

New studies: ?Conspiracy theorists? sane; government dupes crazy, hostile

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled ?conspiracy theorists? appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07...vs-govt-dupes/

Pigshit.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by signupdamnit

An open mind is healthy. Believing every conspiracy theory you hear isn't.

would believing that every 'conspiracy theorist believes', be a form of 'believing in a conspiracy'?

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by theking

Pigshit.

Thanks for stepping up to the plate and leading by example.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Thanks for stepping up to the plate and leading by example.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07...vs-govt-dupes/

hey,. tnaks for the headsup on this story. i found the full study and am finished reading it, t here it is if anyone is interested in it, it's fascinating.

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10....syg.2013.00409


it doesn't seem to me that the study claims anything about sanity or insane or crazy. it does assume some things like powerlessness, etc, hard to code that but they give it a pretty good go i think.

going by their data, conspiracists tend to derogotarily refer to conventionlist more than vice-versa while not offering up alternatives. conventionalists react to those with the hostility.

check the data on page 6 of the study.

[deltav]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

Here you go.. without the dreaded '.ir' so you can actually read it

Yup Richard, I actually have read that study (in its entirety, not just the excerpt you linked). Have you?

My point was that the gist of the article linked by the OP cherry-picked one small detail/finding from the Kent study and actually kind of distorts its findings - and that's because the article was written by a 'famous' 9/11 conspiracy guy and published by Iran's English-language propaganda arm to further their own agendas/worldviews.

[bigluv]

Originally Posted by deltav

Ummm, the news site you link to who published this article is the Islamic Republic of Iran's state-regulated news channel.

And the dude who wrote the article is Kevin Barrett, a well-known conspiracy theorist.

It should be noted that the study mentioned is in no way favorable to conspiracy theorists either, nor does it paint them in a positive light... this is just one out-of-context & cherry picked quote.

You're making a name for yourself with intelligent posts, bravo.

And to OP - you are a fucktard. Unfortunately part of a civilized society is we step in and short circuit survival of the fittsest and don't kill or ostracize or otherwise shun fucktards, but really you should take responsibility for yourself and cut off your nuts so you don't reproduce further contaminating the gene pool.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by deltav

Yup Richard, I actually have read that study (in its entirety, not just the excerpt you linked). Have you?

My point was that the gist of the article linked by the OP cherry-picked one small detail/finding from the Kent study and actually kind of distorts its findings - and that's because the article was written by a 'famous' 9/11 conspiracy guy and published by Iran's English-language propaganda arm to further their own agendas/worldviews.

not yet thanks to the propaganda arm of the iranians, i will

normally i read all sorts of news articles that have cherry picked details strengthening the bias of the writer

you have found differently?

[dyna mo]

this conclusion sums up the primary difference between the 2 groups and also why conventionalists get hostile, it's not about the event for conspiracists, see here:

Most notably, and in accordance with the idea that oppo-
sition to officialdom is a major component of the conspiracist
belief system, conspiracy advocates showed a tendency to spend
much more time arguing against the official explanation of 9/11
than advocating an alternative.

[deltav]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

normally i read all sorts of news articles that have cherry picked details strengthening the bias of the writer

you have found differently?

Sure, there's bias to varying degrees in most journalism.

But when the OP gleefully posts "Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile", then links some 9/11 Truther writing for Iran's state sponsored news, it's kinda... umm... not all that credible? Like, 'not credible' to a high degree.

Again, read the article - the methodology was kind of light but it's got a few interesting observations.

[dyna mo]

this sort of thing could make anybody hostile :::::::


This pattern of results sup-
ports the idea that conspiracy theories have their basis more in
opposition to ofcialdom than in beliefs in specic alternative
theories (Dean, 2002; Wood et al., 2012). For the adherents of the
9/11 Truth Movement examined here, the search for truth consists
mostly of nding ways in which the ofcial story cannot be true.
There is much less of a focus on defending coherent explanations
that can better account for the available evidence.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by deltav

Sure, there's bias to varying degrees in most journalism.

But when the OP gleefully posts "Conspiracy theorists? sane; government dupes crazy, hostile", then links some 9/11 Truther writing for Iran's state sponsored news, it's kinda... umm... not all that credible?

well i find the distinction of 'building 7' to be important within this study, as well as how the entire article is built.

The fact that a lot of Americans feel this building was brought down because of an air plane is.. disturbing.

furthermore, i am rather sure over 70% of the US feel 9/11 was an inside job.

So, if you have an owner admitting he ordered the building pulled, and a poll statistic of over 70% of americans feeling that 9/11 was an inside job

why is it not credible?

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by bigluv

You're making a name for yourself with intelligent posts, bravo.

And to OP - you are a fucktard. Unfortunately part of a civilized society is we step in and short circuit survival of the fittsest and don't kill or ostracize or otherwise shun fucktards, but really you should take responsibility for yourself and cut off your nuts so you don't reproduce further contaminating the gene pool.

Hostile lately? You've outdone theking with that one. Maybe you should exchange names with him as you're definately giving him a run for the money.

[deltav]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

well i find the distinction of 'building 7' to be important within this study, as well as how the entire article is built.

The fact that a lot of Americans feel this building was brought down because of an air plane is.. disturbing.

furthermore, i am rather sure over 70% of the US feel 9/11 was an inside job.

So, if you have an owner admitting he ordered the building pulled, and a poll statistic of over 70% of americans feeling that 9/11 was an inside job

why is it not credible?

Dude, I am talking about the OP and the first article linked and how the study itself doesn't jive with the ""Conspiracy theorists? sane; government dupes crazy, hostile" message. 9/11-was-an-inside-job isn't even the point here.

And even tho it's off topic, you're "rather sure" 70% of Americans believe that? Where are you getting this from? You seem like a genuinely nice guy but I can't discuss this stuff with you...

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by deltav

Sure, there's bias to varying degrees in most journalism.

But when the OP gleefully posts "Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile", then links some 9/11 Truther writing for Iran's state sponsored news, it's kinda... umm... not all that credible? Like, 'not credible' to a high degree.

Again, read the article - the methodology was kind of light but it's got a few interesting observations.

errr. That's the title of the article.

I will admit my title was to provoke conflict and stir emotions much like it though.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by deltav

Dude, I am talking about the OP and the first article linked and how the study itself doesn't jive with the ""Conspiracy theorists? sane; government dupes crazy, hostile" message. 9/11-was-an-inside-job isn't even the point here.

And even tho it's off topic, you're "rather sure" 70% of Americans believe that? Where are you getting this from? You seem like a genuinely nice guy but I can't discuss this stuff with you...

sounds good.

[dyna mo]

can we all at least agree that psychology is bullshit so we can get back to arguing the physics of 7wtc?

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

errr. That's the title of the article.

I will admit my title was to provoke conflict and stir emotions much like it though.

[dyna mo]

there is also only a ~25% difference between the groups re: hostility. and the authors address the lack of their confidence in their criteria::

While the inter-rater reliability for hostility was
good, there is a risk that we may not have captured the full spec-
trum of responses, as we specically excluded comments that
consisted solely of threats, insults, or ridicule. As such, although
we cannot say with certainty that conventionalist comments are
more hostile on average than conspiracist comments, we can say
with some condence that this is true among comments that also
contained some amount of persuasive content.


they had to strip out a lot of the data, several thousand comments boiled down to a few hundred.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

there is also only a ~25% difference between the groups re: hostility. and the authors address the lack of their confidence in their criteria::

While the inter-rater reliability for hostility was
good, there is a risk that we may not have captured the full spec-
trum of responses, as we specically excluded comments that
consisted solely of threats, insults, or ridicule. As such, although
we cannot say with certainty that conventionalist comments are
more hostile on average than conspiracist comments, we can say
with some condence that this is true among comments that also
contained some amount of persuasive content.


they had to strip out a lot of the data, several thousand comments boiled down to a few hundred.

I'm quite sure they didn't factor in the fact that many commentors are government and/or special interest paid to do so as well.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

I'm quite sure they didn't factor in the fact that many commentors are government and/or special interest paid to do so as well.

that's a 'conspiracy theory'

[bronco67]

Michael J Wood is a student at the University of Kent. Did anyone ever stop to think that he might be a conspiracy theorist himself?

[dyna mo]

what they authors chose to conclude their article with::

The observed tendency of conspiracy theory advocates to argue
against conventional narratives rather than in favor of particular
alternatives closely resembles this description of anomaly hunt-
ing, and also parallels Keeley?s (1999) observation that conspiracy
theories rely heavily on ?errant data? rather than on crafting
coherent alternative explanations (p. 117).
We argue that in fact,
anomaly hunting, or a xation on errant data, is a manifesta-
tion of the way conspiracism is structured as a worldview. In
general, conspiracy belief is not based around specic theories
of how events transpire, though these may exist as well. Instead,
conspiracism is rooted in several higher-order beliefs such as an
abiding mistrust of authority, the conviction that nothing is quite
as it seems, and the belief that most of what we are told is a lie.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by bronco67

Michael J Wood is a student at the University of Kent. Did anyone ever stop to think that he might be a conspiracy theorist himself?

I take it you didn't read past post #2.

[Si]

Yet, the people who post the link to this article, cannot put together a rational or logical arguement. Sounds about right to me.

If you need to seek "truth" you cannot view an event with your own eyes.

[epitome]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

I will admit my title was to provoke conflict and stir emotions much like it though.

You have proven yourself an idiot one time too many times for anyone to actually believe that.

[TheSquealer]

haha "study".

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

I take it you didn't read past post #2.

haha I missed that.

Wouldn't this article seem fishy to anyone with half a brain? How many nuts would entertain the idea that sane people are the crazy ones? Probably a lot.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

I don't care who the messaenger is I just like the truthful message.

Truthful . . .

Originally Posted by Rochard

They needed a study to know this? Duh.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by bronco67

haha I missed that.

Wouldn't this article seem fishy to anyone with half a brain? How many nuts would entertain the idea that sane people are the crazy ones? Probably a lot.

You future "sane people" misinformation broadcasting starlette.




She will propbably get the highest paying job in the the news World for doing that broadcast with a serious face. Hell Obama should make her Press Secretary.