Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
one...two...tree

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists

71 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

topb.gif

Wikipedia: conspiracy theory guide

1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;

Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;

Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;

Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;

Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.

5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;

May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.

6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;

Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.

Appeals to 'common sense';

Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

7. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;

Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.

8. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;

Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.

9. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;

At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.

10. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;

Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.

11. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;

When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'

» Wikipedia

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

:whistle:

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Brazil
Timeline

funny you couldn't dig this out when bush was in office.


* ~ * Charles * ~ *
 

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF MESSAGING A MODERATOR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Lift. Cond. (apr) Country: Egypt
Timeline
:o Sounds like my husband.

Don't just open your mouth and prove yourself a fool....put it in writing.

It gets harder the more you know. Because the more you find out, the uglier everything seems.

kodasmall3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (apr) Country: Philippines
Timeline
funny you couldn't dig this out when bush was in office.

All criticism of Bush was silenced by. . .

Fox News

Cheney

Rove

Rumsfeld

Limbaugh

Hannity

King of Saudi Arabia

Bin Laden

Zionists

Saddam

Gitmo

the military industrial complex

capitalists

Christians

gun owners

tobbaco lobby

big pharma

CIA

neoconservatives

conservatives

The Pope

Did I miss anyone in the conspiracy?


David & Lalai

th_ourweddingscrapbook-1.jpg

aneska1-3-1-1.gif

Greencard Received Date: July 3, 2009

Lifting of Conditions : March 18, 2011

I-751 Application Sent: April 23, 2011

Biometrics: June 9, 2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, this sound just like a few people here that cling to the idea of man made global warming.

These sum up a few here:

1. Arrogance. Oh man, they have this in spades.

2. Relentlessness. Whenever the subject is brought up those that claim to be experts gang up and beat any opposition down.

3. Inability to answer questions. Like, why isn't it getting warmer over the last 10 years?

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. "Consensus" anyone?

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Despite glaring evidence that they are wrong they still think they are right.

7. Inability to withdraw. Not until glaciers cover LA will they withdraw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Philippines
Timeline
funny you couldn't dig this out when bush was in office.

The Bush administration was a classic example of groupthink... not conspiracy theorists. Similar in some ways but not the same.

Eight symptoms indicative of groupthink:

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking. Example: The first 3 yrs of the Iraq War.

2. Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions. Example: Dismissing most of the findings of the Baker study.

3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions. Examples: Numerous statements made by Bush essentially ignoring critics (and worse yet ignoring the will of the majority)

4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid. Example: "Liberal" bashing

5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty". Example: I have absolutely no doubt that Cheney did this consistently behind closed doors.

6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. Example: Powell was treated like a leper because he didn't always agree with the Bush cronies.

7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information. (probably part of Cheney's job description).


FamilyGuy_SavingPrivateBrian_v2f_72_1161823205-000.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Russia
Timeline
funny you couldn't dig this out when bush was in office.

The Bush administration was a classic example of groupthink... not conspiracy theorists. Similar in some ways but not the same.

Eight symptoms indicative of groupthink:

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking. Example: The first 3 yrs of the Iraq War.

2. Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions. Example: Dismissing most of the findings of the Baker study.

3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions. Examples: Numerous statements made by Bush essentially ignoring critics (and worse yet ignoring the will of the majority)

4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid. Example: "Liberal" bashing

5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty". Example: I have absolutely no doubt that Cheney did this consistently behind closed doors.

6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. Example: Powell was treated like a leper because he didn't always agree with the Bush cronies.

7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information. (probably part of Cheney's job description).

9/11 was all about Group think?

Cheney and Hali-burt were just group think?

All that Iraq oil Bush was setting his "oil buddies" up with was really group think?

Howz about Ole Bush using hurricane Katrina to blow a hole in the earthen wall to flood New Orleans, was that only group think?

You guys are too much,

:rofl:


type2homophobia_zpsf8eddc83.jpg




"Those people who will not be governed by God


will be ruled by tyrants."



William Penn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Philippines
Timeline
funny you couldn't dig this out when bush was in office.

The Bush administration was a classic example of groupthink... not conspiracy theorists. Similar in some ways but not the same.

Eight symptoms indicative of groupthink:

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking. Example: The first 3 yrs of the Iraq War.

2. Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions. Example: Dismissing most of the findings of the Baker study.

3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions. Examples: Numerous statements made by Bush essentially ignoring critics (and worse yet ignoring the will of the majority)

4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid. Example: "Liberal" bashing

5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty". Example: I have absolutely no doubt that Cheney did this consistently behind closed doors.

6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. Example: Powell was treated like a leper because he didn't always agree with the Bush cronies.

7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information. (probably part of Cheney's job description).

9/11 was all about Group think?

Cheney and Hali-burt were just group think?

All that Iraq oil Bush was setting his "oil buddies" up with was really group think?

Howz about Ole Bush using hurricane Katrina to blow a hole in the earthen wall to flood New Orleans, was that only group think?

You guys are too much,

:rofl:

Danno you think you are making fun of my point of view, but in actuality you are just reinforcing it. You entire position is built on rhetoric & nonsense. Let me give you a few examples:

1. Cheney himself recently admitted there was no credible link between 9/11 and Iraq.

2. Millions (if not billions) of dollars that went to Haliburton & their subsidaries (like KBR) are unaccounted for to this day. This isn't "liberal" fiction as I'm sure you will contend but hard factual information.

3. I never said Bush invaded Iraq for the oil... from what I gather he did it to establish a strategic foothold in the middle east & 9/11 was the perfect cover (or so he thought) to use as a reason.

4. Katrina was screwed up from the federal level down to the local level... Bush was partially to blame but the blame was far from his alone.

Next time go a little heavier on the facts & ease off on the rhetoric.


FamilyGuy_SavingPrivateBrian_v2f_72_1161823205-000.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Russia
Timeline
funny you couldn't dig this out when bush was in office.

The Bush administration was a classic example of groupthink... not conspiracy theorists. Similar in some ways but not the same.

Eight symptoms indicative of groupthink:

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking. Example: The first 3 yrs of the Iraq War.

2. Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions. Example: Dismissing most of the findings of the Baker study.

3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions. Examples: Numerous statements made by Bush essentially ignoring critics (and worse yet ignoring the will of the majority)

4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid. Example: "Liberal" bashing

5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty". Example: I have absolutely no doubt that Cheney did this consistently behind closed doors.

6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. Example: Powell was treated like a leper because he didn't always agree with the Bush cronies.

7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information. (probably part of Cheney's job description).

9/11 was all about Group think?

Cheney and Hali-burt were just group think?

All that Iraq oil Bush was setting his "oil buddies" up with was really group think?

Howz about Ole Bush using hurricane Katrina to blow a hole in the earthen wall to flood New Orleans, was that only group think?

You guys are too much,

:rofl:

Danno you think you are making fun of my point of view, but in actuality you are just reinforcing it. You entire position is built on rhetoric & nonsense. Let me give you a few examples:

1. Cheney himself recently admitted there was no credible link between 9/11 and Iraq.

2. Millions (if not billions) of dollars that went to Haliburton & their subsidaries (like KBR) are unaccounted for to this day. This isn't "liberal" fiction as I'm sure you will contend but hard factual information.

3. I never said Bush invaded Iraq for the oil... from what I gather he did it to establish a strategic foothold in the middle east & 9/11 was the perfect cover (or so he thought) to use as a reason.

4. Katrina was screwed up from the federal level down to the local level... Bush was partially to blame but the blame was far from his alone.

Next time go a little heavier on the facts & ease off on the rhetoric.

That reply was so lame, I will let it stand without correction except to note, my points of the endless conspiracies concerning Bush are from the left in general and not you specific.


type2homophobia_zpsf8eddc83.jpg




"Those people who will not be governed by God


will be ruled by tyrants."



William Penn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
Funny, this sound just like a few people here that cling to the idea of man made global warming.

These sum up a few here:

1. Arrogance. Oh man, they have this in spades.

2. Relentlessness. Whenever the subject is brought up those that claim to be experts gang up and beat any opposition down.

3. Inability to answer questions. Like, why isn't it getting warmer over the last 10 years?

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. "Consensus" anyone?

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Despite glaring evidence that they are wrong they still think they are right.

7. Inability to withdraw. Not until glaciers cover LA will they withdraw.

*Ahem* ;)

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
funny you couldn't dig this out when bush was in office.

The Bush administration was a classic example of groupthink... not conspiracy theorists. Similar in some ways but not the same.

Eight symptoms indicative of groupthink:

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking. Example: The first 3 yrs of the Iraq War.

2. Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions. Example: Dismissing most of the findings of the Baker study.

3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions. Examples: Numerous statements made by Bush essentially ignoring critics (and worse yet ignoring the will of the majority)

4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid. Example: "Liberal" bashing

5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty". Example: I have absolutely no doubt that Cheney did this consistently behind closed doors.

6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. Example: Powell was treated like a leper because he didn't always agree with the Bush cronies.

7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information. (probably part of Cheney's job description).

9/11 was all about Group think?

Cheney and Hali-burt were just group think?

All that Iraq oil Bush was setting his "oil buddies" up with was really group think?

Howz about Ole Bush using hurricane Katrina to blow a hole in the earthen wall to flood New Orleans, was that only group think?

You guys are too much,

:rofl:

Danno you think you are making fun of my point of view, but in actuality you are just reinforcing it. You entire position is built on rhetoric & nonsense. Let me give you a few examples:

1. Cheney himself recently admitted there was no credible link between 9/11 and Iraq.

2. Millions (if not billions) of dollars that went to Haliburton & their subsidaries (like KBR) are unaccounted for to this day. This isn't "liberal" fiction as I'm sure you will contend but hard factual information.

3. I never said Bush invaded Iraq for the oil... from what I gather he did it to establish a strategic foothold in the middle east & 9/11 was the perfect cover (or so he thought) to use as a reason.

4. Katrina was screwed up from the federal level down to the local level... Bush was partially to blame but the blame was far from his alone.

Next time go a little heavier on the facts & ease off on the rhetoric.

That reply was so lame, I will let it stand without correction except to note, my points of the endless conspiracies concerning Bush are from the left in general and not you specific.

1. Woohoo!

2. Yeah, Baby Yeah!

3. No comment - but it should be fairly obvious to everyone by now that the invasion of Iraq was not directly motivated by the threat of WMD, or by liberating oppressed peoples.

4. Oh Momma!

Doesn't seem so lame to me... Perhaps its just lame because you say so ;)

thumb_termper%20tantrum.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (apr) Country: Colombia
Timeline

Was... that... Dannologic at work again? :lol:

We need mawilson to catalogue and update the 'Greatest Hits' thread series in his honor.


Wishing you ten-fold that which you wish upon all others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Colombia
Timeline

Whatever, positive that I wasn't born paranoid, but with all the ####### our government has been pulling lately, sure getting that way. Does that make me a conspiracy theorist? Really don't feel so, but does really tee me off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...