The Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists

[4:17]

From the New York Times Magazine:
 

Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories
 
... They found, perhaps surprisingly, that believers are more likely to be cynical about the world in general and politics in particular. Conspiracy theories also seem to be more compelling to those with low self-worth, especially with regard to their sense of agency in the world at large. Conspiracy theories appear to be a way of reacting to uncertainty and powerlessness. ...

I realize this comes from the Lizard-alien men/Jewish Illuminati-controlled liberal media, but interesting nonetheless. Turns out you guys just need a hug.

 

Discuss.

 

P.S. If you've used up your 10-free articles for the month at the New York Times, and you get the prompt to pay for access, just go into your browser's cookies and delete all the New York Times cookies; that's all it is, their pay wall business: just a cookie. Delete that, and you can read 10 more articles.

[pdogg]

 

 

P.S. If you've used up your 10-free articles for the month at the New York Times, and you get the prompt to pay for access, just go into your browser's cookies and delete all the New York Times cookies; that's all it is, their pay wall business: just a cookie. Delete that, and you can read 10 more articles.

 

 

 

More info about deleting nytimes cookies.

 

http://www.labnol.org/internet/nyt-paywall/18992/

[strocube]

I have commented extensively, on another forum, on this recent phenomena of articles trying to "explain" "conspiracy theory." The person referenced below has pretty much nailed it in a response to the very same piece that appeared in the NYT.

Actually, I am taking it as a good sign that the powers that be, have recently found it necessary to try and discredit anyone who disagrees with the dominant narrative. IT MEANS WE ARE MAKINING THE BASTARDS NERVOUS.

So here is the response to the piece from the NYT that 4:17 posted:

"More mass-media hand wringing. "Gosh, why aren't they buying our crap like the used to? Just because we're hand-in-glove with the same people who are stripping them of their rights,, siphoning their wealth, sending them off to war on false pretexts, poisoning their environment, and making them all diabetic by stuffing everything they eat with high fructose corn syrup is no reason to distrust us. And just because we have been caught time and time again misleading, withholding information, lying, and getting stuff wrong from sheer incompetence is no reason not to believe us. They must be crazy. We'll ridicule them, but really it's for their own good."

You guys should check out disinfo.com

They get some very intersting conversations going. Some of the people who post comments there are really fucking smart. Have found myself intellectually challenged more than once. This is a good thing:)

[pacman]

I have posted many times on threads concerning conspiracy theories. There are some I believe (or more accurately, find to be more plausible than the government line), others I don't. And many more of the latter than the former. I enjoy the intellectual exercise of exploring the possibilities of whether something happened the way we are asked to believe. And we have certainly been asked to believe some quite ridiculous tales over the years. Both by the theorists & official channels.

 

For example I could never accept the story that man never landed on the moon. There was an air of wackiness about that one that condemned it from the start. I was still compelled to look at their evidence though, one never knows what they have. On the other hand, I was always suspicious about TWA flight 800. I couldn't get my head around the idea that a build up of static electricity could have caused a fuel tank to explode. Why hadn't it happened earlier?

 

As the saying goes - "the Lord moves in mysterious ways" & so it was on a trip to Europe I found myself waiting for a tour guide at the XXXXXXXXX in XXXX. There was one other couple waiting too & as you do on such occasions, we started talking. Inevitable questions were asked as to where we came from & what we did. The gentleman was a retired executive of TWA. In the course of conversation I said to him: "I hope you have fixed those dodgy fuel tanks on your 747s."

 

He just stared at me unable to speak. He made a few attempts to talk, stopped himself, looked at his wife, cleared his throat, then he said something I could tell he never wanted to say. "There is no problem with our fuel tanks". Then he told the whole story of how they had recovered all the plane's body & had reassembled it in a warehouse. I remembered seeing the film of it. There was one large section of the fuselage that had a giant hole in it where a missile had hit the plane. The day after they installed it, it was gone. Someone had come in the night & removed it.

 

It all worked out fine for TWA though. They had been carrying a lot of debt, their employees pension fund was broke, they didn't have the capital to renew their fleet, they weren't in good shape. The Chief Executive flew to Washington, met the President for 8 hours & when he returned home, they had all the money they needed to fix everything.

 

Despite all the eye witness accounts confirming the flight was shot out of the sky, those people are still portrayed as being unreliable & a bit flaky because they don't follow the official line. That's the problem with anyone promoting an alternative view. They are immediately condemned as a "conspiracy theorist" which is now a media code-word for a nutcase. Or worse.

 

"More mass-media hand wringing. "Gosh, why aren't they buying our crap like the used to? Just because we're hand-in-glove with the same people who are stripping them of their rights,, siphoning their wealth, sending them off to war on false pretexts, poisoning their environment, and making them all diabetic by stuffing everything they eat with high fructose corn syrup is no reason to distrust us. And just because we have been caught time and time again misleading, withholding information, lying, and getting stuff wrong from sheer incompetence is no reason not to believe us. They must be crazy. We'll ridicule them, but really it's for their own good."

 

Brilliant!       

 

It absolutely nails the situation from both sides of the coin.

 

Rather than attack conspiracy theorists for daring to question the status quo, the disbelievers would be far better off if they actually looked past the media spin & made up their own mind. These days with the web one doesn't need to go far to hear the opposing view. 

 

 

[4:17]

Two things, and that's the last I'll say, because, you know .. fighting on the Internet. Special Olympics.

 

One: The piece in question uses multiple cited sources. The rebuttal cited uses bluster and vague generalities with no sources cited. So ... what makes it brilliant, exactly? Where's the sourced point-by-point refutation of the original article? Now that would be interesting.

 

Two. If we in the media are all in on it, I just have one question: how come I'm not rich? Where are my kickbacks? Where's my invitation to Bilderberg? I must have called in sick on the day the Illuminati called us all into the office to explain how we get rich by being their mouthpieces. Damn.

 

Oh well, I'm off to hold some people down and force-feed them fructose-laden fast food, followed by an afternoon of forcing people to vote for a mainstream candidates who misspend their tax dollars for war and corporate coffers. Next week I'll either be tying them down and forcing them to waste natural resources or to spend their time viewing passive mainstream entertainment instead of out protesting the evils of the day. If I have time I'll distort some facts or just make them wrong -- I usually save that for when I have some down time in the afternoons late in the week.

 

It's all in a day's work for this humble minion in the 4th Estate.

 

Carry on.

[pacman]

One: The piece in question uses multiple cited sources. The rebuttal cited uses bluster and vague generalities with no sources cited. So ... what makes it brilliant, exactly? Where's the sourced point-by-point refutation of the original article? Now that would be interesting.

 

As a witty piece of satire that takes the theorists areas of concern & pokes fun at them in a most concise & effective manner, I think it is brilliant. I could have said it was clever or similar but I chose the word brilliant. And my opinion of it is as valid as anyone else's. And I do know they are all sweeping generalisations but if I needed to parse every item I would be missing the point. 

 

Two. If we in the media are all in on it, I just have one question: how come I'm not rich? Where are my kickbacks? Where's my invitation to Bilderberg? I must have called in sick on the day the Illuminati called us all into the office to explain how we get rich by being their mouthpieces. Damn.

 

The media bosses are rich. They get invited to Bilderberg. Your day will come...   as soon as you buy a TV station. Or newspaper.        

 

Oh well, I'm off to hold some people down and force-feed them fructose-laden fast food, followed by an afternoon of forcing people to vote for a mainstream candidates who misspend their tax dollars for war and corporate coffers. Next week I'll either be tying them down and forcing them to waste natural resources or to spend their time viewing passive mainstream entertainment instead of out protesting the evils of the day. If I have time I'll distort some facts or just make them wrong -- I usually save that for when I have some down time in the afternoons late in the week.

 

Huh!            Now who's writing the satire? I like it...     

[SiamSam]

Here's a conspiracy theory that takes the cake:

 

I was speaking to a friend last night and he firmly believes Gillette (the company that has a strangle hold on the shaving business) has for decades and continues to have a clever marketing conspiracy on the go.

 

As you know the company comes out with a new fangled razor every two years or so. They have introduced razors with two blades; three blades; four; five; and even six. Then there are pivoting heads, teflon stripes and batteries or whatever. All of us are interested in the perfect shave so naturally we are curious about the new revolutionary product Gillette is pushing. We buy, try, and love them...at first. Here lies the conspiracy.

 

According to my friend, initially the blades Gillette uses in their new product are of superior quality and excellent. Then at some point within the two years Gillette deliberately and slowly degrades the quality of the blades so the shaving experience is not as satisfying as when they first launched the new product. At that point Gillette introduces another novel razor idea and the cycles begins all over again. 

 

Even though this sounds a little far fetched it's an interesting idea nonetheless. 

 

Your thoughts gentleman?

[Kahuna]

My thoughts Sam:

 

Too easy to defeat simply by growing a beard.........

 

Or, buying the cheap shit razors that I use a couple times and toss in the garbage....

 

And perhaps, Gillette likely has little presence in the Arab world where full beards are all the rage...

 

And perhaps again, also in Asia where they have fuzz on their cheeks...

 

And finally perhaps again, there will likely be guys here who will subscribe to this theory simply because Gillette is a owned by a Yank company and this is simply evidence of one more Yank attempt to fuck the world...

 

And absolutely finally perhaps once again, you might want to convince your friend to get some help Sam...........

[SiamSam]

 

And absolutely finally perhaps once again, you might want to convince your friend to get some help Sam...........

 

Very funny and true!!! 

[saab1]

Greetings Siam !

 

Hope you are keeping well !

 

My thoughts exactly on your theory about Gillette Razors, ive thought now for years, how the blades seem excellent at 1st, then after a while, they don't give a clean shave like they used to, at one point, I thought it was my stubble adapting to the blades, but now after reading this, im not alone in these thoughts !!

[pacman]

I first heard about the behaviour of the razor blade companies nearly 40 years ago. And it came from an engineer who had worked alongside those involved. And it isn't confined to Gillette, they all do it. 

 

Based on my personal experience it is 100% true, new razor products shave so much better than the one you previously bought. After a year or two they are no longer the same. From vague memory I was told the companies move to a lower grade steel that doesn't hold its edge as well.

 

I don't see anything particularly strange about this, it's just clever marketing.

 

I certainly don't think it has anything to do with Gillette being American & they are out to fuck us. It's all to do with the constant demand for public companies to make more & more money. And that happens in every country.

[Kahuna]

 

 

I certainly don't think it has anything to do with Gillette being American & they are out to fuck us. It's all to do with the constant demand for public companies to make more & more money. And that happens in every country.

  

That was a joke pacman...Have you folk south of the equator all lost your sense of humor...

 

How come it doesn't surprise me that you support Sam's friend's theory however............. 

 

This has become the theater of the absurd.......What kind of mind would sit around and think

about some notion as absurd as a conspiracy of razor blade manufacturers....

 

Experts of the blade I suppose..................

 

Wait, there could be a book and a film in this....

 

And for the record, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are indeed dead................

[Torurot]

Of course blades will blunt if you use them. Change them more often. Oops there's the thread of truth in the "conspiracy", blades blunt. "Give away" the razor body for "free" charge an arm for the blades. Sounds like all the inkjet printer people.