Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?
Discussion
Its a psychological condition called Apophenia ... you know when you look at a cloud and think you see something, its that. Extends out to images, and even number sequences (a lot of CTs think that certain dates if you convert into something mean the devil or the like). All quite bonkers but very prevalent in this type of CT.
you know one branch of CT that I find particularly stupid is numerology. Where they kind of find some 'connection' between things by retrofitting any number that they can find with a link to something else. You can basically invent a non-existent connection between any two things but they seem to think it proves something.
Blown2CV said:
you know one branch of CT that I find particularly stupid is numerology. Where they kind of find some 'connection' between things by retrofitting any number that they can find with a link to something else. You can basically invent a non-existent connection between any two things but they seem to think it proves something.
324 character post and the date of the founding of Constantinople. Just saying. DonkeyApple said:
Blown2CV said:
you know one branch of CT that I find particularly stupid is numerology. Where they kind of find some 'connection' between things by retrofitting any number that they can find with a link to something else. You can basically invent a non-existent connection between any two things but they seem to think it proves something.
324 character post and the date of the founding of Constantinople. Just saying. (324 + number of letters in DA)x number of words in DA - number of words in DA = 666
And we all know what that means….
Blown2CV said:
you know one branch of CT that I find particularly stupid is numerology. Where they kind of find some 'connection' between things by retrofitting any number that they can find with a link to something else. You can basically invent a non-existent connection between any two things but they seem to think it proves something.
Graham Hancock went down that route with numbers, stars and pyramids in the 90s and got very upset when horizon called him out on it. I’ll repost this - was by someone on here recently (sorry, can’t remember who it was but it struck a chord so much that I actually made a note of it on my phone)
Someone said:
It’s weird that there are some who are doggedly insistent that people are being manipulated and lied to but will utterly reject any possibility that they are actually the ones being manipulated, lied to and grifted.
Pincher said:
I’ll repost this - was by someone on here recently (sorry, can’t remember who it was but it struck a chord so much that I actually made a note of it on my phone)
A large part of it seems to be the thrill of the alternative (far fetched) explanation for something which is a huge draw for some (it can be seen in the Covid thread sometimes).Someone said:
It’s weird that there are some who are doggedly insistent that people are being manipulated and lied to but will utterly reject any possibility that they are actually the ones being manipulated, lied to and grifted.
An extract from Britannica on what makes a CT
American historian Richard Hofstadter explored the emergence of conspiracy theorizing by proposing a consensus view of democracy. Competing groups would represent the interests of individuals, but they would do so within a political system that everyone agreed would frame the bounds of conflict. For Hofstadter, those who felt unable to channel their political interests into representative groups would become alienated from this system. These individuals would not accept the statements of opposition parties as representing a fair disagreement; rather, differences in views would be regarded with deep suspicion. Such alienated people would develop a paranoid fear of conspiracy, thus making them vulnerable to charismatic rather than practical and rational leadership. This would undermine democracy and lead to totalitarian rule.
There are some great peer reviewed studies on the mindset of those that literally cannot think critically and instead simply reject everything from a particular group be it a government, industry or competing point of view and will hunt out information that supports their view despite swathes of evidence against it.
American historian Richard Hofstadter explored the emergence of conspiracy theorizing by proposing a consensus view of democracy. Competing groups would represent the interests of individuals, but they would do so within a political system that everyone agreed would frame the bounds of conflict. For Hofstadter, those who felt unable to channel their political interests into representative groups would become alienated from this system. These individuals would not accept the statements of opposition parties as representing a fair disagreement; rather, differences in views would be regarded with deep suspicion. Such alienated people would develop a paranoid fear of conspiracy, thus making them vulnerable to charismatic rather than practical and rational leadership. This would undermine democracy and lead to totalitarian rule.
There are some great peer reviewed studies on the mindset of those that literally cannot think critically and instead simply reject everything from a particular group be it a government, industry or competing point of view and will hunt out information that supports their view despite swathes of evidence against it.
Someone on Facebook said:
Long list of probably fake stats,
Summary - electric vehicles use more resources than ICE because of the materials that have to be mined and electricity they use that's generated from coal, not to mention the kittens that are killed by wind turbines.
Summary - electric vehicles use more resources than ICE because of the materials that have to be mined and electricity they use that's generated from coal, not to mention the kittens that are killed by wind turbines.
Someone replying on Facebook said:
It's not about being green it's about controlling us.
They
Its such a powerful word in the world of a CT. When you read the evidence presented, instead of citing an individual, or a definable group, its simply taken back to 'They'
It allows spurious accusations to be made, based on nothing more than internet chatter, and quote it as fact. As that cannot be fact checked.
But who are They?
WEF I hear people shout. The Government, follows another. Is it an individual in the WEF, or is it a group, who is it? What happens when people get other jobs, do they continue looking to control people or do they just give it up? What happens when Labour unseats the Tories later this year, does Starmer have a weekend away with Rishi where they have a hand over of the 'controlling them' documentation?
Its such a powerful word in the world of a CT. When you read the evidence presented, instead of citing an individual, or a definable group, its simply taken back to 'They'
It allows spurious accusations to be made, based on nothing more than internet chatter, and quote it as fact. As that cannot be fact checked.
But who are They?
WEF I hear people shout. The Government, follows another. Is it an individual in the WEF, or is it a group, who is it? What happens when people get other jobs, do they continue looking to control people or do they just give it up? What happens when Labour unseats the Tories later this year, does Starmer have a weekend away with Rishi where they have a hand over of the 'controlling them' documentation?
john2443 said:
Someone on Facebook said:
Long list of probably fake stats,
Summary - electric vehicles use more resources than ICE because of the materials that have to be mined and electricity they use that's generated from coal, not to mention the kittens that are killed by wind turbines.
Summary - electric vehicles use more resources than ICE because of the materials that have to be mined and electricity they use that's generated from coal, not to mention the kittens that are killed by wind turbines.
Someone replying on Facebook said:
It's not about being green it's about controlling us.
coldel said:
They
Its such a powerful word in the world of a CT. When you read the evidence presented, instead of citing an individual, or a definable group, its simply taken back to 'They'
It allows spurious accusations to be made, based on nothing more than internet chatter, and quote it as fact. As that cannot be fact checked.
But who are They?
WEF I hear people shout. The Government, follows another. Is it an individual in the WEF, or is it a group, who is it? What happens when people get other jobs, do they continue looking to control people or do they just give it up? What happens when Labour unseats the Tories later this year, does Starmer have a weekend away with Rishi where they have a hand over of the 'controlling them' documentation?
It's natural, humans are tribal. There's a ubiquitous 'us and them' scenario that plays out across all aspects of society. There appears to be a deep seated psychological need to be in a team or group who share a certain type of thinking or behaviour. A conspiracy theorist who believes the moon is made of cheese and it's being covered up by NASA/government for example will naturally use 'they' to refer to this perceived homogeneous blob that they see as oppressing the truth, rather than certain individuals.Its such a powerful word in the world of a CT. When you read the evidence presented, instead of citing an individual, or a definable group, its simply taken back to 'They'
It allows spurious accusations to be made, based on nothing more than internet chatter, and quote it as fact. As that cannot be fact checked.
But who are They?
WEF I hear people shout. The Government, follows another. Is it an individual in the WEF, or is it a group, who is it? What happens when people get other jobs, do they continue looking to control people or do they just give it up? What happens when Labour unseats the Tories later this year, does Starmer have a weekend away with Rishi where they have a hand over of the 'controlling them' documentation?
Ironically you can see exactly the same behaviour and traits on this thread. The CT moniker is a catch all ('you'll never believe what those silly CT's have come out with now!' type posts etc) and 'they' is used a lot when discussing conspiracy theorists as if there is a complete uniformity of opinion across the board of anybody who has ever held an alternative view.
GMT13 said:
It's natural, humans are tribal. There's a ubiquitous 'us and them' scenario that plays out across all aspects of society. There appears to be a deep seated psychological need to be in a team or group who share a certain type of thinking or behaviour. A conspiracy theorist who believes the moon is made of cheese and it's being covered up by NASA/government for example will naturally use 'they' to refer to this perceived homogeneous blob that they see as oppressing the truth, rather than certain individuals.
Ironically you can see exactly the same behaviour and traits on this thread. The CT moniker is a catch all ('you'll never believe what those silly CT's have come out with now!' type posts etc) and 'they' is used a lot when discussing conspiracy theorists as if there is a complete uniformity of opinion across the board of anybody who has ever held an alternative view.
The context is different though - a CT can attribute the 'truth' they are attempting to push on to everyone to 'Them' but they are completely undefinable (simply saying WEF is not defining it) so their truth as it were relies on faith and belief the big holes in their truth are as they assume they are. Ironically you can see exactly the same behaviour and traits on this thread. The CT moniker is a catch all ('you'll never believe what those silly CT's have come out with now!' type posts etc) and 'they' is used a lot when discussing conspiracy theorists as if there is a complete uniformity of opinion across the board of anybody who has ever held an alternative view.
On here today, we have seen posts of actual individuals who are CTs pushing their own truths, these people are not really They, you can see their names.
But yes grouping is a fundamental part of how we allow ourselves to deal with the complexities of the world, however when it comes to a CT providing a fact or truth, that cannot have some sort of ambiguous They associated with it as part of the motive.
A harmless one, but you have to ask the question - Why??
https://www.nme.com/news/music/avril-lavigne-addre...
https://www.nme.com/news/music/avril-lavigne-addre...
coldel said:
An extract from Britannica on what makes a CT
American historian Richard Hofstadter explored the emergence of conspiracy theorizing by proposing a consensus view of democracy. Competing groups would represent the interests of individuals, but they would do so within a political system that everyone agreed would frame the bounds of conflict. For Hofstadter, those who felt unable to channel their political interests into representative groups would become alienated from this system. These individuals would not accept the statements of opposition parties as representing a fair disagreement; rather, differences in views would be regarded with deep suspicion. Such alienated people would develop a paranoid fear of conspiracy, thus making them vulnerable to charismatic rather than practical and rational leadership. This would undermine democracy and lead to totalitarian rule.
There are some great peer reviewed studies on the mindset of those that literally cannot think critically and instead simply reject everything from a particular group be it a government, industry or competing point of view and will hunt out information that supports their view despite swathes of evidence against it.
What about the mindset of those that literally cannot think critically and instead accept everything from a particular group be it a government, industry or competing point of view. American historian Richard Hofstadter explored the emergence of conspiracy theorizing by proposing a consensus view of democracy. Competing groups would represent the interests of individuals, but they would do so within a political system that everyone agreed would frame the bounds of conflict. For Hofstadter, those who felt unable to channel their political interests into representative groups would become alienated from this system. These individuals would not accept the statements of opposition parties as representing a fair disagreement; rather, differences in views would be regarded with deep suspicion. Such alienated people would develop a paranoid fear of conspiracy, thus making them vulnerable to charismatic rather than practical and rational leadership. This would undermine democracy and lead to totalitarian rule.
There are some great peer reviewed studies on the mindset of those that literally cannot think critically and instead simply reject everything from a particular group be it a government, industry or competing point of view and will hunt out information that supports their view despite swathes of evidence against it.
And where is this “practical and rational leadership”? - given the state of the world, this is somewhat lacking.
If we had such leadership then perhaps there would be less space for conspiracy theories?
PurplePenguin said:
What about the mindset of those that literally cannot think critically and instead accept everything from a particular group be it a government, industry or competing point of view.
And where is this “practical and rational leadership”? - given the state of the world, this is somewhat lacking.
If we had such leadership then perhaps there would be less space for conspiracy theories?
They are the CT's. Its a totally accurate definition.And where is this “practical and rational leadership”? - given the state of the world, this is somewhat lacking.
If we had such leadership then perhaps there would be less space for conspiracy theories?
Pincher said:
I’ll repost this - was by someone on here recently (sorry, can’t remember who it was but it struck a chord so much that I actually made a note of it on my phone)
Amusingly....this is actually true for both sides Someone said:
It’s weird that there are some who are doggedly insistent that people are being manipulated and lied to but will utterly reject any possibility that they are actually the ones being manipulated, lied to and grifted.
Dagnir said:
Pincher said:
I’ll repost this - was by someone on here recently (sorry, can’t remember who it was but it struck a chord so much that I actually made a note of it on my phone)
Amusingly....this is actually true for both sides Someone said:
It’s weird that there are some who are doggedly insistent that people are being manipulated and lied to but will utterly reject any possibility that they are actually the ones being manipulated, lied to and grifted.
There aren't always two sides to every debate, just as there aren't usually valid alternatives to facts.
It was funny when Groucho Marx said it but that's as far as it goes.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff