Belief in Conspiracies Can Lead to Contradictions

[Make7]

snip/

... a new study suggests that the attraction to conspiracy theories can lead some to endorse entirely contradictory beliefs.

Researchers discovered people who endorse conspiracy theories see authorities as fundamentally deceptive. This belief that the “official story” is untrue can lead people to believe several alternative theories – despite contradictions among them.

snip/

To see if conspiracy views were strong enough to lead to inconsistencies, the researchers asked 137 college students about the death of Princess Diana.

The more people thought there “was an official campaign by the intelligence service to assassinate Diana,” the more they also believed that “Diana faked her own death to retreat into isolation.”

By the way, Diana cannot be simultaneously dead and alive.

snip/

Thus, belief in a conspiracy is so strong that it blinds individuals who can then believe completely inconsistent ideas.
[font style="color:#ffffff; font-size:0.4615em;"]http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/01/27/belief-in-conspiracy-theories-can-lead-to-contradictions/34163.html[/font]

[intaglio]

1. Link please n/t

[Make7]

6. k here...

  a link.from google search results

[jakeXT]

2. It's like fighting al-qaeda and supporting it at the same time. /nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. "Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Alice in Wonderland.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Like a religion.

For many, that is exactly what conspiracy theories are. They have never met one they didn't like or couldn't get behind.

[William Seger]

5. There's a good one in GD now

Evidence that a Saudi family aided the Saudi hijackers is being taken as evidence that the "inside jobbers" were right all along.

[Ace Acme]

7. The test of a first-rate intelligence

Last edited Sun Oct 27, 2013, 09:45 PM - Edit history (1)

... is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.

In the absence of sufficient information to draw conclusions, endorsing two contradictory ideas as alternative possibilities is pathological only to someone who is, for some unknown reason, very anxious to close the books on a subject.

Do I really have to remind you about a foolish consistency and all that?

[William Seger]

8. LOL, cognitive dissonance is a sign of superior intelligence?

But actually, in this case an "opposed idea" was somehow being taken as EVIDENCE of the opposite claim. Excuse me if I don't accept that as "first rate intelligence," and if I have to explain why, well....

[Ace Acme]

9. In a word, yes.

Cognitive dissonance is the human condition in modern life--unless you dishonestly smear reality to make it fit your wishes.

Evidence is frequently contradicted by other evidence, as people with practical experience well know.

[William Seger]

10. In a word, LOL

Again, this wasn't a case of evidence contradicting other evidence; it was contradictory evidence being claimed AS evidence. But like they say, it ain't funny if you have to explain it...

[Ace Acme]

11. Your belief that evidence can not be contradictory is indicative of a crippled epistemology.

First off, you are trying to jump to conclusions before there's even been an investigation.

If there's insufficient information to make a conclusion, then contradictory evidence is just an indication of the need for investigation.

By framing the issues in terms of whacking conspiracy theory moles instead of in terms of having a complete and honest investigation, you give yourselves superhuman powers to declare everything irrelevant.

[William Seger]

12. LOL some more

Nowhere did I say or imply that "evidence can not be contradictory." Actually, it's pretty clear that you jumped into this thread without quite understanding what it was about -- which seems to be a habit with you. Allow me to quote my post in its entirety, with some added emphasis to direct you to the important point:

> Evidence that a Saudi family aided the Saudi hijackers is being taken as evidence that the "inside jobbers" were right all along.

That, my friend, is a crippled epistemology -- confirmation bias carried to the extreme of actually ignoring what the evidence actually implies.

[Ace Acme]

13. Where do you get the idea that evidence that a Saudi family aided

an alleged hijacker is not evidence of an inside job?

What are we talking about here? Are we talking about the FBI informant's support of the San Diego alleged hijackers?

The support of Princess Haifa of benefactors of those same alleged hijackers?

You think that Saudi friends of the Bushes can not be participants in an inside job?

[William Seger]

14. Yeah, that's the ticket

If the Saudi family in Sarasota aided the terrorists and then disappeared, then they much have been friends of the Bushes, huh. Thanks, Sherlock, superior intelligence once again solves the mystery.

[Ace Acme]

15. Princess Haifa was a friend of the Bushes nt

[William Seger]

16. A) Sez who? B) So what?

...and C) are you implying that the "inside job" actually involved bribing Arabs to carry out a suicide attack?

[Ace Acme]

17. You never heard of "Bandar Bush"?

You really need some remedial education. You never saw "Fahrenheit 9/11"?

How about these: James R. Bath, Khalid bin Mahfooz, Salem bin Laden, the Carlyle Group, Omar al-Bayoumi, Riggs Bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerice International, Joe Albritton, Prince Turki al Faisal? Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz?
Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir and Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud?

How about Mohammed Atta, Marwan al Shehhi, Khalid Almihdhar, Nawaf Alhazmi? Heard of them?

[William Seger]

18. I'm not surprised that you didn't answer a single question

You'd just like to imply, without \evidence, that Bandar's wife must be a friend of the Bushies because Bandar is, which is dubious enough, but then then you'd also like to imply, with neither evidence nor logic, that it matters because Bush probably convinced her to bribe the hijackers into taking on a suicide mission? And you think I have a crippled epistemology?

[Ace Acme]

19. I didn't say "must". YOu seem to be implying that she must NOT be a friend of the Bushes,

... even though her husband was so close they called him "Bandar Bush".

Gee, employ differential standards much?

I never said Princess Haifa bribed anyone. You have a dishonest habit of saying something stupid (like suggesting that Saudi participation in 9/11 is inconsistent with "inside job&quot and then twisting my simple debunking of your nonsense into a stooopid straw man argument. It's probably worked for you well over the years in your mission of bullying people away from this group.

[William Seger]

20. (Sigh) looks like another reading comprehension issue

> YOu seem to be implying that she must NOT be a friend of the Bushes, even though her husband was so close they called him "Bandar Bush".

Say what? For some strange reason, you want to discuss what you mistakenly think I'm implying while ignoring what I actually said, repeatedly, while simultaneously accusing me of straw-man arguments. So, once again I find myself needing to quote myself. My first post was this:

Evidence that a Saudi family aided the Saudi hijackers is being taken as evidence that the "inside jobbers" were right all along.

Then, after you jumped in to demonstrate your "first-rate intelligence" by stating the trivial truth that evidence is sometimes contradictory, I attempted to explain the point again:

But actually, in this case an "opposed idea" was somehow being taken as EVIDENCE of the opposite claim.

But once again, the point I was actually making eluded your "first-rate intelligence," so you persisted with defending your misinterpretation of it. But having some hope that you might eventually get it, I attempted yet again:

Again, this wasn't a case of evidence contradicting other evidence; it was contradictory evidence being claimed AS evidence.

Perhaps I gave you too much credit to think the point was obvious, but the simple point was not that evidence of the Florida family aiding the hijackers was convincing proof that 9/11 was not an inside job, but rather that claiming that evidence as actually being evidence of an inside job was absurdly illogical. But once again, your "first-rate intelligence" persisted in "debunking" something I had neither stated nor implied, so I repeated the above quote a second time. As if to answer to that -- at least, I can't think of any other reason why you tossed it out -- you then claimed that Princess Haifa was a friend of the Bushes. I asked how you concluded that, why you thought it mattered even if true, and if you were seriously trying to imply that the "inside job" actually involved bribing Arabs to carry out a suicide attack. Rather than answer any one of those questions or to clarify just what the hell you were getting at, you tossed out a list of Arabs who were associated in one way or another to Bush, as if that had any relevance to the actual issue.

Now, after repeatedly failing to even understand what I repeatedly said, you're claiming a "simple debunking of {my} nonsense"?

[MrMickeysMom]

21. I think you like to jump on persons who post comment here without addressing their own questions...

A survey of every argument over this issue, who weighs in and how your responses side step can be found everywhere.

You favor argument over discussion. Maybe there should be a "Creative Argument" section under "Creative Speculation"?

[William Seger]

24. "You favor argument over discussion."

That depends on whether the topic is subjective opinion or objective fact. You think conspiracist bullshit deserves respect. I don't, but by engaging in debate here, I give you every opportunity to prove me wrong. If you had any real respect for the truth, you'd understand why weeding out bullshit is a necessary process.

[Ace Acme]

22. I didn't say I had a first-rate intelligence.

Princess Haifa's husband was a close friend of the Bushes. Unless you have evidence that the Princess was somehow estranged from them, I think we can fairly say she was a friend of the Bushes.

Princess Haifa is known to have given money to someone who was a benefactor to two of the alleged 9/11 hijackers.

It's not my fault that I fail to understand what you say. You clearly employ verbosity as a means of trying to disguise the fact that what you say makes no sense. That way you can impugn the intelligence of those who read your nonsense, while giving to those who don't read it the impression that you have a point.

[William Seger]

23. So, you flunked your own litmus test in post #7 ?

> It's not my fault that I fail to understand what you say. You clearly employ verbosity as a means of trying to disguise the fact that what you say makes no sense.

Really? My first post in this thread was one sentence and the next two were two sentences each. The next was five but it repeated one of the earlier sentences. Sensing that such verbosity wasn't helping, my next several posts were one or two sentences each. My eighth post in this thread was fairly verbose, I admit, but I do believe that most people will see that it's just a synopsis of the thread (since you seemed to have lost the plot), and not "a means of trying to disguise the fact that what you say makes no sense."

[Ace Acme]

25. Blah blah blah

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Thanks for proving my point.

[zappaman]

26. 'Blah blah blah"

Your most coherent post ever.


Is that how members of the "legitimate truth movement" prove their point?

[Ace Acme]

27. Facts needn't be proven, only aknowledged.

Last edited Wed Nov 6, 2013, 02:46 PM - Edit history (2)

Fact: The 9/11 widows' 300 questions got only 27 answers.

Fact: NIST's report on the twin towers was only half a report.

Until you acknowledge the facts, and either admit that something needs to be done about it or admit that despite the grave injustice of the first fact and the alarming scientific dishonesty of the second you don't care whether anything is done or not, I have no reason to be interested in your opinions.