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:
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Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility:
Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: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 favored the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals."
Additionally, it turned out that the
anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically
attached to their own conspiracy theories as well.
According to them, their own theory of
9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could
fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century
under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan -
was indisputably true.
The so-called conspiracists, on the
other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely
explained the events of 9/11:
"For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account."
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.
Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists.
Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists.
It also found that the so-called
conspiracists to not like to be called "conspiracists" or
"conspiracy theorists."
Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press.
Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press.
Professor deHaven-Smith explains why
people don’t like being called "conspiracy
theorists": The term was invented and put into wide
circulation
by the CIA to smear and defame
people questioning the JFK assassination!
"The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time."
In other words, people who use the terms
"conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" as an insult are doing
so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real
conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination.
That campaign, by the way, was
completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals;
the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks
the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to
assassinations.
DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved "state crimes against democracy."
DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved "state crimes against democracy."
An obvious example is the link between
the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for
presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith,
we should always discuss the "Kennedy assassinations" in the plural,
because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same
larger crime.
Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed "conspiracy theory" label impedes cognitive function.
Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed "conspiracy theory" label impedes cognitive function.
She points out, in an article published
in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people
are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against
democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that
conflicts with pre-existing belief.
In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong "confirmation bias" - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the "conspiracy theory" label) to avoid conflicting information.
The extreme irrationality of those who attack "conspiracy theories" has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University.
In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong "confirmation bias" - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the "conspiracy theory" label) to avoid conflicting information.
The extreme irrationality of those who attack "conspiracy theories" has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University.
In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled
"Dangerous
Machinery - 'Conspiracy Theorist' as a Transpersonal Strategy of
Exclusion," they wrote:
"If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid…By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur."
But now,
thanks to the Internet, people who
doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public
conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using
the "conspiracy theory" smear is nearly worn-out.
In academic studies, as in comments on
news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous - and
more rational - than anti-conspiracy ones.
No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.
No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.
