Is there a common psychological profile for these types? Is there a listing in the DSM for them? I mean, really. Is there some fundamental reason that they refuse to grasp logic and what the rest of the world considers scientific facts? Did it start when they found out there really wasn’t a Santa Claus? I’m all for a good debate but debating with a CT is like trying to convince a true paranoid that no one is out to get him. No amount of proof will ever convince either one, so why waste your time?
OTOH, I do love it when their arguments are deconstructed point-by-point by someone who has the technical knowledge or who has taken the time to thoroughly research the matter at hand.
Mods: Perhaps this would fit better in IMHO but it is about debates, sort of.
They’re not all mentally ill, although I am sure many CTers are really in need of psychological treatment. Is it a cliche to say it’s probably founded upon deep insecurity? The hallmark traits of CTers, in my experience, are arrogance and a desperate need for the world to be easily comprehensible with only a few people responsbile for everything of importance. The arrogance is expressed as the idea that they know something 99.99% of people are supposedly not smart enough to see or understand and that they are smart enough to unravel the plots of a super-secret elite conspiracy, for example. They need the world to be understandable so small, powerful groups can be blamed for their own failures or their disappointment with the fact that the world isn’t living up to their expectations.
We had a CT guy on here a while back (I think he got banned?) who had the idea that the most powerful person on the planet would have to be omnipotent. This struck me as an incredibly interesting misconception, which seems to be quite common with CT-believers.
We also had another guy just now (this one definitely got banned) who, as another poster noted, seemed to have his pattern recognition receptors working overtime. This, too, strikes me as typical of the CT-believer: All things, and I mean all things, are, in his (or her) mind, intimately connected. There’s a pattern out there, and he (or she) is seeing it – always, and everywhere.
Combine those two misconceptions – “someone omnipotent is out there” and “the signs are everywhere” – and you’ve got, perhaps, the beginnings of a CT mindset.
I think it has to do with the inability or unwillingness to look at things objectively. I think there is a certain attraction to conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theory is almost always (can’t think of an exception) - more interesting than the truth. Instead of looking at the facts - and seeing what can be drawn from them - they find facts to support their argument and ignore or dismiss all others.
Most people believe what they want. I catch myself doing this as well sometimes. The difference - I hope - is I realize that I am having trouble accepting something cause I don’t want it to be true.
Also - I think there is some power in the written word. I remember in elementary, middle, and even I think high school - having to support what you were writing with something in writing - there wasn’t any emphasis on the QUALITY of the source. I don’t think many people are adept at assessing the quality of a journal, article, or book. Also people sometimes are willing to believe anyone with a Dr or PhD in their title.
As always seems required in these discussions, unfortunately…
Yes, there are conspiracies that exist, many of which have been uncovered, some of which have no. However, the phrase “Conspiracy Theory” is roughly equivalent to “bullshit”. Saying that something is a CT is not a claim that the government never lies or that there are no conspiracies, it’s functionally equivalent to saying “Your claims are bullshit.”
If some Russian dude had told me in 1975 that “the Communist Party totally controls the Soviet Union and the army and the unions!”, I would have said “well, duh.”
If the same Russian would instead have told me that “a nefarious cabal of sadistic Nazi-Squids from beyond planet Saturn, guided by the sage advice of the disembodied heads of Briusov, Vrubel and Rasputin, though actually under the demonic-mesmeric control of the Masonic Jew-Lamas of Bhutan, are secretly breeding a super-duper-evil race of shamanic crab-apes over in the uncreated realm of Shambala, poised to attack the world of men armed with the mindmelting powers of” – say – “fluoride”, I would have said “Ivan, I love you, and we will finish this bottle of vodka together, but you are off your Bolshevik rocker.”
It seems to me that some of the ones that are smarter (not by much I grant that) usually think that they found a flaw in the consensus, and that at any moment all scientists or experts will see it their way.
I do remember, for example, a poster that even made big models with metal washers and tooth picks to demonstrate how “dumb” everyone else was in assuming that planes and the fires wrought down the World Trade Center.
I think that sometimes it is the fear they have in confronting the fact that a good chunk of their lives was gone by working on a theory that was bananas.
I have a very good friend - an intelligent man, a man trained in logic (a software programmer) who for a time, believed in a 9-11 conspiracy theory. He may still and only now denies it because of all the taunting he got, I can’t be sure.
I regret now that I never had a serious discussion with him on it. First, I owe him that level of respect - he is a good man and a good friend and as I said, intelligent. Second, I would like to know how he came to believe it. Since I have already noted he is intelligent, I would like to understand his thought process.
But alas, all I ever did was tease him. I regret that now. I can’t believe he would have been able to present any facts to persuade me, but I wish I had treated him with the respect he has earned.
In any case, I guess what I’m saying is, even intelligent people can have blind spots.
No, you don’t automatically owe him that level of respect for a ridiculous claim. Rather than 9/11 conspiracy, say he believed the world was run by a cabal of secretive Jewish businessmen and made some ridiculously racist remarks about Jews?
Would you then “automatically” owe him a hearing on the subject? Does he still deserve “respect” due to your estimate of his past behavior?
Blind spots or not, there are modes and trains of thought that don’t automatically warrant any sort of fair shake or respect. Civility perhaps dictates polite behavior but that does not extend to a civil or respectful response to bad ideas.
This is a more reasonable stance. It would be nice to know how a person comes to ridiculous beliefs. And if that requires a listening attentively, so be it. But that doesn’t mean those beliefs or the person who holds them needs any more respect than such a hearing necessitates.
The *man *deserves the respect, not the beliefs. You have no idea what I owe him and how often he has been there for me, so in this case, your opinion doesn’t count.
9/11 conspiracy theories probably don’t fall into the categories, but there are both actions and beliefs so vile and disgusting that they should automatically mean a loss of respect for the holder. Respect is never automatic.
From where I’m standing, you’re not making a good point on why anybody should give CTers a fair hearing. You’re simply trying to assuage your own guilt over a personal failing and lashing out against somebody who disagrees.
Besides other things already mentioned, I’d say that a defining characteristic is that they have a broken (for lack of a better phrase) “plausibility filter”; sometimes just for their pet conspiracy, sometimes for everything. They don’t just reject Occam’s Razor; they don’t even use Occam’s Blunt Instrument. The wildest, least physically and rationally plausible claim is given the same credence as one that’s based on facts and makes logical sense.
I think the ‘being in on the truth, not like those sheep in the matrix,’ and being comforted that things have a purpose, covers a lot of it.
I can see how, from a certain perspective, 911 is less scary if our government caused/helped it than if our government was beaten by a handful of terrorists. Myopic, unsupportable? Sure, but less scary for some. Random, capricious, unpredictable, uncontrollable are scary words.
I had a co-worker who was pretty much as you describe: intelligent, professional, educated, competent. I didn’t taunt him, but sat down with him and tried to talk to him.
His fancy was chemtrails. He was adamant that big jet airplanes are spraying chemicals behind them, and those are the big linear cloud-like trails you see behind jets. He figured it was probably “the government” spraying chemicals to control the populace.
I asked him for evidence. He admitted he didn’t have any. I asked him how he knew. He knew! He could tell! He was astonished that I couldn’t tell. “How come they show up sometimes, but not other times?” I talked about relative humidity. Nothin’.
I asked him why, if this was happening, no one had ever gone up in a small plane to collect samples of these chemicals while they were still concentrated. He agreed that someone ought to do that.
To him, it was just as clear as clear could be…without a single reason that he could explain.
To me, it was eerie. It made me think of the old New Yorker cartoon, “I say it’s spinach, and I say the hell with it.” We may have been conversing, but we were not communicating.