New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile

[Why Syzygy]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/07/14/whatabout7/

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.

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. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11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.”

continued....

[William Seger]

1. Rerun

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11355501

[BobbyBoring]

2. Finally

A study that's right!

[MrMickeysMom]

3. Of course…

Remember the bumper sticker, "question authority"? It started being popular in the late 70's, and pretty much goes along with the generation that probed, then probed again.

Any time one questions instead of accepting "conventional wisdom", the brain is used globally. To use your whole brain is a good thing, and quite sane…

The reason you see comments on the hostile side, conversely, has to do with a narrow minded, limbic brain reaction. This, IMO, is the kind of response you'd get from persons who, upon frustration, uses less and less of their brain.

They're everywhere… so they're well represented here…

[Why Syzygy]

4. Yes ...

I don't know how anyone with a hermetically sealed mind can consider themselves mentally healthy.

[William Seger]

5. Is your mind "hermetically sealed"

... against the possibility that "truther" Kevin Barrett is lying to you about what the study actually says? Since Barrett "forgot" to link to it, here it is:

http://www.frontiersin.org/personality_science_and_individual_differences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409/abstract

I can't seem to find any part of that study even remotely resembles Barrett's characterization of it. If you can please point me to it, then I guess I'll have to agree with you about why I missed it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. "I can't seem to find any part of that study even remotely resembles Barrett's characterization"

Maybe that part of the study was what they were trying to hide when the Illuminati blew-up WTC 7.

[Why Syzygy]

8. Kevin

summarizes the report, which is exactly what is reported ...

"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."


"Hostile fanatic" is not sanity. It is, however, a perfect description of the official story conspiracists.

[William Seger]

9. I asked for you to show me where the study says your OP title

... and instead you give me more of Barrett's distortions? Now, you've got two things to show me.

http://www.frontiersin.org/personality_science_and_individual_differences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409/abstract

[Wolf Frankula]

7. Of Course

Aliens killed Kennedy, the CIA built the pyramids, Saucer Nazis caused Watergate, the Moon Landing was real, it's the Moon that's Faked, the Rockefellers murdered Jesus and Elvis never existed.

Wolf

[sweetexile]

10. conspiracists legitimized

I am really happy at this news-if you'd like another prestigious source check out Dr. Alan Scheflin's information. He is a law professor at Santa Clara Law and also teaches on hypnotism and governmental/CIA interference in the lives of American citizens.

[IronGate]

11. And you believe this crap?

So, they're taking 2174 comments and extrapolating it to the entire population to prove their point?

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.”

I'm calling bullshit on this comment, CT'ers are usually much more angrier and more strident than rational people.

[superbeachnut]

12. Barrett lied again

Someone failed to read the study, it says paranoid conspiracy theorists are wrong, living in a fantasy world.

[William Seger]

13. Study authors say Barrett lied

Setting the record straight on Wood & Douglas, 2013
Posted on July 13, 2013 by Mike Wood

Our recently published Frontiers study on online communication, “What about Building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, has been the subject of some chatter on the Internet – but not quite in the way I had hoped. A story by Kevin Barrett on PressTV.ir has interpreted the study as showing that conspiracists are “more sane” than conventionalists, and, given that this is an appealing headline for long-suffering conspiracists, has been copy-pasted around the Internet in a highly uncritical fashion. I’m often guilty of this too – reading the headline and moving on – because who has the time to read every original source of every news story? In this case, of course, the paper says nothing of the sort and the article’s conclusions are based on misrepresentations of several critical findings.

http://conspiracypsychology.com/2013/07/13/setting-the-record-straight-on-wood-douglas-2013/

Just another example of why "truther" should always be in quotes. Another example is your continued belief in Barrett's distortions after being invited to read the study for yourself.