Posts
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.
So when will they remove the straight-jacket? I can hardly breathe.
The most recent study was published
on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the
University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What
about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11
conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy
theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.
The authors were surprised to
discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist
comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were
coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people
who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such
events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two
to one.
Not only are we now the majority, the minority is going bonkers:
Perhaps because their supposedly
mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy
commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that
people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile
when trying to persuade their rivals.”
They are hostile because the foundations of their American
religion are crumbling. They are fanatics
defending their religion:
Additionally, it turned out that
the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to
their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of
9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes
with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction
of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true.
In short, the new study by Wood and
Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a
hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately
describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who
dispute it.
Who but the insane could believe such a nutty conspiracy theory?
The so-called conspiracists, on the
other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the
events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the
focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the
official account.”
Wait a minute – the theorists formerly known as kooky are actually
the ones who are sane?
You know the feeling, when you are one of only a handful of
people who know about a rock band; it feels like a small club, a little gem
that you don’t have to share with many?
You know how you feel a bit upset when they finally hit it big, and
become popular?
Well, I don’t feel any of that pain regarding this
news. The internet is doing its slow
drip, drip, drip of work. Hip, hip,
hooray!
(HT Charles
Burris at LRC)
Ever notice that the very people who called Ron Paul crazy in 2008 and 2012 are now saying exactly what he said as if the ideas were theirs all along?
ReplyDeleteGlennBeckCallYourOffice...