Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories
In the days following the bombings at the Boston Marathon, speculation online regarding the identity and motive of the unknown perpetrator or perpetrators was rampant. And once the Tsarnaev brothers were identified and the manhunt came to a close, the speculation didn’t cease. It took a new form. A sampling: Maybe the brothers Tsarnaev were just patsies, fall guys set up to take the heat for a mysterious Saudi with high-level connections; or maybe they were innocent, but instead of the Saudis, the actual bomber had acted on behalf of a rogue branch of our own government; or what if the Tsarnaevs were behind the attacks, but were secretly working for a larger organization?
Crazy as these theories are, those propagating them are not — they’re quite normal, in fact. But recent scientific research tells us this much: if you think one of the theories above is plausible, you probably feel the same way about the others, even though they contradict one another. And it’s very likely that this isn’t the only news story that makes you feel as if shadowy forces are behind major world events.
“The best predictor of belief in a conspiracy theory is belief in other conspiracy theories,” says Viren Swami, a psychology professor who studies conspiracy belief at the University of Westminster in England. Psychologists say that’s because a conspiracy theory isn’t so much a response to a single event as it is an expression of an overarching worldview.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
= new reply since forum marked as read
....in large, compartmental and geographically diverse organizations such as the US government? Do you know the tactics and impact of purposeful inaction, of transferring work to other sections without providing guidance or expectations? That's exactly what this report lays out.
Reading between the lines, one can easily surmise that the determinations unit manager and the EO director were in cahoots. I think it's good that Holder has initiated investigations, it needs to come out.
Lerner will go down for this, along with others. "I haven't done anything wrong!" (but I plead the 5th so as to not incriminate myself)
Pleading the 5th is a smart choice for her but she shouldn't have said anything at all. Right now her actions very much look like a violation of the Hatch Act and that is a fast-track for termination from government service. The Hatch Act is taught every year in mandatory ethics training. But, refusing to testify, well, that's not in the table of penalties so she has a much better chance of keeping her career taking that track.
So, sit in the corner and cry, "conspiracy bullshit." I'm gonna watch the show. 
.
.
.
yup - my own (but not so detailed) response would have been
BECAUSE THEY ARE TRUE???
CC
Last edited Tue Jun 4, 2013, 06:32 AM - Edit history (1)
....for a well-deserved, thorough thrashing.
"
Koerth-Baker's) assumption is that, in a country perennially employing tens of thousands of top-secret covert operatives, homicide-trained assassins and “special forces” enthusiasts, no one has any reason to suspect that any event involving some kind of death or mayhem was ever engineered on an organized basis."
"In order to understand who is a crazy conspiracy theorist, you first have to understand which theories are crazy, and which are valid—and that requires a knowledge of current events and history apparently beyond the ken of the likes of Koerth-Baker. Without such knowledge, you’re in no position to assess whether a perceived conspiracy might be real or not. Example: if you don’t know that John Wilkes Booth had accomplices in the death of Abraham Lincoln, you would judge as bonkers a statement that at least one American president was in fact killed by a conspiracy. It is not clear whether Koerth-Baker is truly ignorant of these issues—or just wants to help the New York Times keep you ignorant."
"But there is another group, to which we proudly belong: people who live in the real world and are not blind to nuance, people who don’t buy what the kook machines have to sell, but also recognize that the establishment media (compromised by, among other things, its financial dependency on the corporate elites) can’t be trusted to get to the real bottom of things."
To which I too proudly belong.
http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/05/31/new-york-times-warning-trust-authorities-on-boston-bombing-or-youre-nuts/
I'm glad, at least, with the fact that the huge majority of comments by the readers on the NY Times link show they've felt the same way I did about the author. She's a moron (or has an agenda). Someone needs to send her back to elementary school and give her a nice history book.
I particularly liked this gem:
"Psychologists aren’t sure whether powerlessness causes conspiracy theories or vice versa. Either way, the current scientific thinking suggests these beliefs are nothing more than an extreme form of cynicism, a turning away from politics and traditional media — which only perpetuates the problem."
Now we have psychologists trying to decipher (pay attention) what CAUSES conspiracy theories (?). And we have a "current scientific thinking" on the matter... funny, because one would think controversies related to history accounts should be a topic to be deciphered by experts in this field. Which means historians, social scientists, political scientists, etc. Not psychologists.
But her point is trying to equate being skeptical with a mental disease. Healthy people don't question their governments and "traditional media".
Of course. Why should we question governments or "traditional media"? It's not like they have been ever partners in any known, proven, real, undeniable conspiracy...
New York Times: "Why we know Iraq is lying" (LOL!)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/opinion/why-we-know-iraq-is-lying.html
Has "traditional media" found the weapons of mass destruction already?
After they do, perhaps they may start rebuilding their reputation and someone may pay some attention to their desperate articles about "conspiracy theories". Some of which should be named "controversies" by now.