Yep. And the (very) basic epistemological principle that has to be pointed out to the OP is that correlation does not imply causation. Even if CT’s were significantly more prevalent now than in the past (and he conflated non-CT’s with CT’s, like the fact that our intel services did know that something of the sort was in the works with the JFK CTers, anyways) and distrust of the government was more prevalent, that wouldn’t mean that there was a causative relationship at work.
I advise you to drop this tone. It’s not appropriate for this forum and it’s going to result in your topic getting further off track.
Truly, it is not irrelevant to the question. You are correct, however, that this really isn’t a difficult concept for most people to grasp…
Just to elucidate a bit…CT’s have always been with us, regardless of whether or not there are trust issues. Basically it’s how the human mind works. CTers are people who need all the I’s dotted and T’s crossed, and who are unsatisfied when they aren’t. Life is messy, and chaotic events happen, but to folks who are susceptible the siren song of a given CT it’s comforting that (in their own world view) what’s actually happening isn’t random chaos at all, but instead an orchestrated master plan by a nearly all powerful shadowy government or organization. In reality, all the I’s WERE dotted, and the T’s all crossed, and there really isn’t all this chaos and uncertainty, since those all powerful groups are out there, and they are responsible.
If you are shocked by this level of emotionalism, my advice is to lock yourself into a climate controlled and heavily padded room somewhere and retire from this world. Basically, the responses thus far have been pretty mild for this board on this subject, especially considering your pretty transparent OP. My own emotions thus far have been laughter related, possibly with a tinge of incredulity that you tried to slip this by and humor that, when called on it, you resorted to a post such as the one I’m quoting from.
Your attempt to portray me (and Finn) as emotionally charged up and in attack mode towards you have been amusing, so I suppose I have that emotion going as well.
Is straw on sale?
I’d probably call it ‘a tape recorded mini-rant that has little or nothing to do with the actual posted responses thus far’, but that’s just me.
It’s fairly ironic that, thus far, everyone has been on topic (amazing enough on this board :p), with the exception of you and this post. Well, and now me…which is also tickling my funny bone.
-XT
The traditional social-psychological explanation for conspiracy theories is that people want order instead of chaos. Humans prefer menacing centralized cabals to menacing decentralized randomness. They prefer to believe that the government could have protected us from harm, if only the evil conspiracy was de-fanged.
I don’t know how much empirical ground that theory has, but on the surface it seems pretty plausible. It nicely explains the conspiracy aspect of many conspiracy theories. Such theories usually explain an incident that is the result of the breakdown of some perceived order with an alternate theory in which what appeared to be a breakdown of order was in fact just some deeper order: the conspiracy. Since the beginning of time, people have been asserting deeper orders to explain perceived chaos. And this is just one more way in which the human mind does so.
Your proposed theory is that conspiracy theories are a result of distrust of the official story. But even if we take as given that the official story is rejected as a result of some kind of rational distrust, your theory does not explain why the alternative explanation is always so irrational. If you don’t buy the official line, why go straight to the craziest explanation? I could invent a dozen reasons why the US might have blamed Al-Qaeda for 9/11 even though it was domestic terrorists, for example. Why believe that the government itself did it? The reason is that if the government did it, then there is order and control. If someone else did it, there is disorder and lack of control.
I think that when people believe things that are false, it is generally because the belief makes them feel better in some way. It is internally rational for them because the benefit of the false belief is greater than the benefit of true belief. Conspiracy theories are just a subset of such false beliefs. They are the subset of beliefs that are believed because the believer gets some benefit from an explanation that favors order over disorder.
Governments are made up of humans.
Humans aren’t perfect, nor can human beings prove what they’re not thinking of.
Therefore, all conspiracy theories become possible.
As syllogisms go, it’s not a very useful one. It’s a close relative to any argument in which failure to disprove by the standards of a proponent constitutes proof in the eyes of that proponent.
This might be one of the sanest posts I have ever seen on here.
Other than my own of course 
Just to add something to Richard Parker’s fine post, I think there is also an aspect that some people crave of being in the know…of special knowledge (the high intellect and keen observational and deductive abilities that the common herd just doesn’t share). CTers are people who know that their view isn’t main stream, and they revel in the fact that they are part of the select few who grasp what’s REALLY going on, and aren’t blinded like the rest of the sheeple by the lies of the shadowy all powerful government.
-XT
Well put. There is tremendous psychological attractiveness to rejecting mainstream beliefs in favor of some esoteric truth. If I ask myself why I enjoy Snopes so much, part of the honest answer is that I like feeling like I know the real story, the straight dope, about some widely held false view. A conspiracy theory is often just the flipside of that coin, when the widely held view is actually correct.
Well dangit, Finn, not_alice and Richard Parker have succinctly and eloquently covered the points I was going to make. Your checks from the Overlords will be in the mail. 
Information overload, the ease of conspiracy theory transmission via the Internet and the increased complexity of life and international relations, piled onto the credulousness and absence of critical thinking skills that have always existed, are more than ample to explain the popularity of CTs.
“Openness” is fine and increasing access to government meetings and records is a laudable goal. But as noted, we’ve got a more open government now than at any time in the past, and it hasn’t hindered the growth of CTs. “Trust” (or lack of same) is not terribly relevant either. Skepticism about the motives of government, big business etc. has always been rampant in this country.
You could open up every file at the Department of Defense, C.I.A. and other agencies and the CTers would still find ways to explain how the real files are still hidden or that the info never went into any files in the first place.
I know, you can’t blame people for just asking questions.
To clarify again why some people do more than :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: when CTs are expounded or defended: there are two ways to explain why they are active and even vehement in debunking CTs.
-
Promotion of CTs is a waste of time, a distraction from real issues and a manifestation of poor logic and defective reasoning. Indulgence in CTs helps promote generalized suspicion and hostility towards useful institutions. It also fosters bigotry (and makes a useful cover for bigots who seek a semi-respectable outlet for their hatred). Countering the CT mindset is therefore a worthwhile endeavor.
-
People debunk CTs because they’re meanies and/or have ulterior motives they don’t want us to know.
Take your pick.
Hard to believe that “only” 60% of people think it was a cover up.
I would say history plays a pretty large role, many of the more classic CT’s in the US seem to come from the Cold War days, eg that there are ‘more secret’ agencies than the CIA, weather balloons being classified etc etc. Even arguments for 9/11 generally have some relation to these more historical ones in my view.
And no matter how open the US is now, there will always be the opportunity to say ‘ah but thats what they want you to think’. Which is the whole problem with non falsifiable theories in general of course.
Otara
Richard Parker, nice post, I hope the hopped-up ones are taking note. Personally I find it fascinating how we’ve come from a situation in the 50’s where conspiracy theories were fairly non-existent, to the present state where they seem to be growing at such a rate that they may even displace the mainstream view. What Richard says echoes the views of Noam Chomsky, who sort of inspired me to test the waters with this thread. He postulates that it is primarily the internal consistency of the information that governs it’s reception, and has little to do with veracity. He states that in almost all past times, but especially since propaganda become more highly developed, the establishment has been expert in the “manufacture of consent”. He adds, and I agree, that more recently people cannot turn to the official organs of propaganda for a convincing narrative, simply because it is so increasingly fraught with inconsistencies (which people refer to as “lies”) or else avoids the issues that most concern the disaffected. He thinks that the various alternative venues are winning, and will continue to win, because despite that the CT theories often consist of basically zero factuality, they do address what is concerning them, the do provide at least some explanation, and they are often much more internally consistent (extreme emphasis on internally) than the official narratives.
He implies that the mainstream (for the time being) organs will either learn how to address this by engaging the disaffected and starting to release more facts more of the time, or they will lose big by attempting to ignore or suppress the phenomenon. I definitely agree with that. History is absolutely rife with examples. A big one, and one that springs to mind in response to the reactionary religiosity of the vitriol in some of the above posts, is Christianity.
The Christianity CT which features all manner of crazy and impossible things, would not have stood the slightest chance whatsoever of gaining currency if…what? Can you guess, oh vitriolic ones? That’s right, if they hadn’t been marginalized. Marginalizing them, ignoring them, pointing out that the substance of their dogma made no sense whatsoever in pointed and denigrating terms, didn’t work. Even escalating to extremes of physical persecution and violence had no effect…well, no, actually the reverse effect. If they had been scheming to control Pagan/secular Rome, then history shows that Rome couldn’t have played more foolishly into their hands.
I personally don’t want people who believe in Reptoids from PlanetX taking over our empire, any more that I want Christians to again, so I think we had better understand what’s going on and how to counter it. But things happen faster now due to the better lines of communication. Where it took Rome the better part of a century to screw itself over by ignoring and castigating a CT imported by just a handful of “apostles” it won’t take that long this time around when there are already many tens of millions.
But just keep on with the vitriol. Never engage. I’m sure it will just go away.
Btw. how’s that workin’ out for ya? The polls say…well you read 'em, lol. Who knows what battles with CT idiots have whipped you into such a frenzy. I’m brand new here. But I guess they have been so bad that now you’re seeing spooks. You are too hopped up to think tactically, to analyse the heart of the problem, and to sense the obvious solution to it. You watchdog-types seem to actually believe that the factuality of the CT’s matter! Hilarious. Like it ever has or probably ever will!
You are now on pretty thin ice.
You keep posting digs and insults and then pretendng that you are the victim and that is not going to fly, here.
If you actually think you have a point, then make it without making sly digs at other posters. Otherwise, we will be forced to shut down this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
I told you earlier to stop making comments like this. So this is a formal warning: stop now.
However it’s true that this thread is getting bogged down in assumptions about Defero’s intent. Let’s see if we can address the point he is making about the reason conspiracy theories exist without accusing him of ulterior motives.
Meanwhile… I see you’re peddling pure, weapons-grade ignorance here.
Conspiracy theories were almost non-existent in the 50’s? Google “McCarthy” if you’re curious to see just how CT free the 1950’s were.
And Christianity (which evidently you loathe) is, surprise surprise, not a CT. Go figure, you’re still doing your best to blur the lines between doubt, belief, and CT’s. I suppose we’ve got a few other posts until you try the back door again and suggest that The Man, or whoever, isn’t giving us all the facts. Much like your previous invention that the 9/11 Commission was denied information or that Troofers would shut up if that ‘hidden’ info was just released. Of course now we’ve Chompskyian nonsense too, what luck. Bull… like 9/11 Troof is more internally consistent than, ya know, the 100% consistent set of facts that make up reality? Yeah… the prevalence of idiots in large groups is totally due to facts not being readily available. Damn The Man, damn Him!!!
But please, go back to bashing Christianity as a CT. Which, of course, just shows how threadbare and irrational your argument is, as Christianity flourished during ages when the Church itself was the dominant and unquestioned power in many spheres of life. It’s not often that someone refutes their own half-baked OP, but congrats, you’ve done it. So we have proof that not only do you agree that there is no causal relationship between the trust a people have for their leadership and the rate of CT’s, but there’s also no correlative relationship either.
But I’m sure that fighting ignorance and cultivating critical thinking is a rabbit trail. Please tell us the way to go instead.
Edit: didn’t see mod note. Last line removed. But I retain my previous challenges as to the OP’s bogus claim of hidden/secret/held-back 9/11 files and such.
This is definitely absurd: consider witch trials, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and certain opponents of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for example. It’s true that mass media have made it much easier for conspiracy theorists to connect with each other and share information, and perhaps given them more apparent popularity, but they’re not new at all.
It’s appealing to believe conspiracy theories flourish when there is more access to information, and Barack Obama’s experiences with his birth certificate might support the idea, but if conspiracy theories have always existed then there’s no reason this has to be true.
I think that part of the problem here is that we have addressed that point, thoroughly, and the OP has chosen to ignore most of the points for some reason. That, coupled with the odd assertion that the mere presence of CT’s is enough to draw valid conclusions about external events yields a bit of a ‘perfect storm’.
With that being said, I might as well sum up the consensus up to this point:
-Many people are stupid, ignorant, and lack critical thinking skills.
-This, coupled with fear and paranoia, drives many to invent neat little explanations to explain a world which is chaotic and confusing, as many people are not intellectually capable of dealing with ambiguity, uncertainty, or ignorance.
-If anything, Future Shock has accelerated and the flow of information, especially via the 'net, has allowed certain memes to fester and percolate faster and ‘self publishing’ is possible on a scale never before seen. While this does not create CT’s differently than before, it does allow them to spread much more easily. And without training in research methodology, many people can be fooled by seeing something that seems convincing and happens to be on the net. Loose Change proved that in spades.
-Along the same lines, widely held beliefs often have an air of legitimacy simply because of the number of people who believe in it. Anti-vaxers would be seen as nuts if it was just the homeless guy on the corner ranting, but when anti-vaxers have message boards and talk shows and what have you, well, nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd. And there is safety (and group identity) in numbers.
-And along those lines as well, belief in a CT elevates an otherwise ordinary person (in their own mind). They’re no longer an overworked and underpaid nebibish. No, now they’re In The Know, one of the elite, Illuminted (dare I say, an Illuminatus).
All of these factors combine to create a memesphere ripe for the mental-fecal spew that are CT’s to fester and grow.
The antidote, as always, is critical thinking and learned-intellect. Simple epistemology and honest skepticism are more than enough of a vaccine (and they don’t even cause autism [Jack, don’t hit me! 
]).
You do realize that the Roswell incident happened in the 40’s…right? Look up the CT that Roosevelt knew before hand about the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor sometime, then get back to us about how CT’s were ‘fairly non-existent’. You could also look up, oh, say, the Illuminati thingy for extra credit. You’ll be amazed and confused to learn it didn’t actually happen before the 50’s (unless you meant the 1750’s?)…
Your entire premise is flawed. CT’s have always been with us. The only difference is that, today, the average person has a wider set of opinions and view points available than just those in his or her village. Back before that whole internet thingy people simply believed that the local lord was turning a blind eye to the village witch who had killed the neighbors sheep, or caused a still birth. Today people have access, instantly, to news and views from literally around the world, and are able to propagate their crazy beliefs to the widest possible audience. Something like Loose Change (or Loose Change II, Electric Boogaloo!) simply wouldn’t have been possible even 20 years ago. But today, a couple of mopes in a basement can make a viral video that is available to millions…a percentage of who basically will meet the criteria of someone who wants to believe.
Noam Chomsky, ehe? Well. No comment on that part. On the rest of the above, people have always turned to explanations that fit their world view. The only difference today is that any crazy theory can get wide spread circulation due to how information is able to be spread so rapidly. People haven’t been able too (nor did they) particularly trust the ‘official organs of propaganda’ for…well, I’d say ever.
Leaving aside your incoherent side track about Christianity, what more information could be release to the ‘disaffected’ on, say, the JFK assassination? On 9/11? On Roswell? On any given CT? How would it help? There has been a metric boat load of information on 9/11, including several very good debunking shows on ‘mainstream organs’, and yet, ignorance seems to still predominate. Basically, CTers are immune to logic, reason and information. Giving them more information isn’t going to make them suddenly see the light and start to use the gray matter between their ears, or suddenly make them want to sit up and listen.
-XT
One important nitpick here, and I do agree with what you are saying in the thread, but even Chompsky thinks that the 9/11 truthers are full of it.
(Bonus, JFK CTs too in his opinion)
Fair enough. I was commenting more on his social-science viewpoints. The man is a very good linguist and a very, very shitty political scientist.