Conspiracy Theory and Psychology (You're all mad!)

[RyntynTýna]

Asi to tu vzdam

 

[armedoldhippy]

And no one eats apple pie anymore.

i still eat apple pie. still warm, right out of the oven with a large serving of good vanilla ice cream ...

 

[RyntynTýna]

Jíst kolá? se zmrzlinou... to m?žou jen v USA

 

[Guest]

I know where you live! That is not a veiled threat! I think your viewpoint benefits from living in a Country far distant from the U.S.

It's humorous for me that you American members are SO PAROCHIAL!

I know, I know ... a whole country can't be parochial ... 'parochial' originates from the word 'parish'.

But somehow you U.S. members succeed at making the U.S look like a very small place indeed.

A thread about the psychology of conspiracies devolves into a conspiracy theory thread. Maybe I'm just high but that's pretty fucking funny.

 

[Guest]

The other day ICMag member Chi13 posted about the cause of Conspiracy Theories and ICMag member Hempy McNoodle (no doubt a descendant of the great Scottish McNoodle Clan) replied he had heard Groupthink was the cause of conspiracy theory. I knew that Groupthink sometimes caused decision-making teams to make bad decisions but not about Groupthink as part of conspiracy theory so I looked into Groupthink to see what was what.


I wondered if Groupthink had contributed to the assault on the Capitol and in what way? More specifically: was there Groupthink in the White House? If so, how did poor decision making in the White House almost ruin American Democracy?


My books says: “Groupthink occurs when the cohesiveness and inertia developed in a group or team drives out good decision making or problem solving. The preservation of the team takes precedence over accurate decisions or high-quality task accomplishment. Not enough conflict occurs.”


So what is cohesiveness in a group and what is group inertia?


Group cohesiveness is how well the members relate to one another and think of themselves as a team. You may have heard bosses, even employees, say: ‘we’re like family here’.
And group inertia occurs when members of the group have a history of decisions leading to good/just/important outcomes or have a history of solving tricky problems.


The Academic who first coined the term ‘groupthink’ sees it is caused by a number of factors:

• “Illusion of invulnerability: (Because of our track record we cannot fail.)
• Shared stereotypes: – members disagree with information they do not like by discrediting the source of the information. (Well, you know what they [engineers/blacks/doctors/etc] are like.)
• Rationalising: They reason away problems or issues that prevent the group agreeing. (Well, that’s what s/he always says. Or, that information is low quality.)
• Illusion of Morality: Members believe that as moral individuals they are not likely to make bad decisions.
• Self Censorship: Members keep silent about their misgivings and try to minimise doubts. (I must be wrong if others think differently.)
• Direct pressure: Sanctions are imposed on members who have different viewpoints. (If you’re not going to get along with us then you’ll just have to leave the team. You’re either with us or you’re against us.)
• Mind guarding: Members protect the team from being exposed to disturbing ideas/information. (Don’t listen to them. They’re way off track.)
• Illusion of Unanimity. Members conclude the team has reached a consensus because the most vocal members are in agreement. (If Dave, Melissa and Pam agree … there must be team consensus.)”

My source book is aimed at the Business world and goes on to give six ways Teams can avoid Groupthink. There’s no need to continue with these six ways because my aim here is to add to ICMag member Chi13 post and a clearer understanding of the modern prevalence of Conspiracy Theory.


So have we seen any of the factors listed above play out in U.S. politics recently? Have you seen any mindguarding or rationalising on TV? How about the Illusion of Unanimity?


In terms of group inertia as mentioned above, the Trump administration likely was patting itself on the back from the moment it achieved Office. It seems to me that because achieving Office was no small task it's likely the Trump administration thought itself almost bullet proof!


END PASTE.


I 'll go on with this if there's enuf interest ... what do you say? Pls contribute ...

 

[CosmicGiggle]

The other day ICMag member Chi13 posted about the cause of Conspiracy Theories and ICMag member Hempy McNoodle (no doubt a descendant of the great Scottish McNoodle Clan) replied he had heard Groupthink was the cause of conspiracy theory. I knew that Groupthink sometimes caused decision-making teams to make bad decisions but not about Groupthink as part of conspiracy theory so I looked into Groupthink to see what was what. ...

Excellent post Sat x RB, i just finished watching a very interesting documentary on the subject on CNN, Inside the Qanon Conspiracy, it covers (in depth) a lot of issues on how things developed and produced the current situation.

Catch it online if you can, I'm sure you'd appreciate it!

 

[Brother Nature]

I know where you live! That is not a veiled threat! I think your viewpoint benefits from living in a Country far distant from the U.S.

It's humorous for me that you American members are SO PAROCHIAL!

I know, I know ... a whole country can't be parochial ... 'parochial' originates from the word 'parish'.

But somehow you U.S. members succeed at making the U.S look like a very small place indeed.

America was founded by some pretty staunchly religious folks so 'parochial' is a pretty apt catch-all description if you have to use one word. I was a bit surprised my stoned musing on the course of this thread ruffled the feathers it did and got the support from others it did. It was a simple comment on the fact that in groups a discussion of a topic like this generally turns into a discussion of that which makes up the topic, just interesting more than anything. I have no issues with conspiracy theorists, skepticism of what we're told is a positive thing to my mind. However, paranoid delusions with no base in reality can be damaging to society as a whole. Take religion for example, believing there is some all seeing and all being entity that controls everything but is also judgmental of it's subjects is pretty unrealistic, yet nearly all societies on this planet subscribe to that line of thought and it's brought about some of the worst atrocities in our history. Hmm... Maybe Mr. McNoodle is actually on to something there with his group thought comment.

 

[armedoldhippy]

America was founded by some pretty staunchly religious folks so 'parochial' is a pretty apt catch-all description if you have to use one word. I was a bit surprised my stoned musing on the course of this thread ruffled the feathers it did and got the support from others it did. It was a simple comment on the fact that in groups a discussion of a topic like this generally turns into a discussion of that which makes up the topic, just interesting more than anything. I have no issues with conspiracy theorists, skepticism of what we're told is a positive thing to my mind. However, paranoid delusions with no base in reality can be damaging to society as a whole. Take religion for example, believing there is some all seeing and all being entity that controls everything but is also judgmental of it's subjects is pretty unrealistic, yet nearly all societies on this planet subscribe to that line of thought and it's brought about some of the worst atrocities in our history. Hmm... Maybe Mr. McNoodle is actually on to something there with his group thought comment.

being skeptical & thinking for ones self are necessary. blindly swallowing bullshit because "so & so" said it & "i agree with him" is the basis of most of our problems. i believe almost nothing i hear said, and less than half of what i see with my own eyes...

 

[Sunshineinabag]

I have been interested and disturbed by who and why people believe in conspiracy theories. I have been reading a bit of the psychology behind it and thought I'd share this article.

True False Believers: The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories
Conspiracy theories are byproducts of basic mind processes.
Posted Apr 21, 2020
Prevention is hard for us to do, and even harder to appreciate. This is because it requires long-term thinking, which is not our species’ specialty. It is also because paradoxically, successful prevention efforts tend to look like overreactions.

Prevention isn’t exciting, and doesn’t produce easy heroes. When something is broken, the problem is self-evident, and the person who fixes it is the clear hero. When a problem is prevented, nothing bad happens, and we often can’t know for certain whether it would have happened had we not intervened. Perhaps the calamity we claim to have averted would not have materialized in the first place. That’s why all the TV shows are about detectives and lawyers and surgeons—the people who solve murders, try criminals, and save the sick, not the people who prevent criminality and sickness from happening in the first place.

The current coronavirus response constitutes a public, large-scale, and acute attempt at prevention. Our preventative measures, in addition to the technical, economic, and political problems they pose, are also bound to be psychologically trying. We can therefore anticipate a backlash. Such a backlash will take various forms, but without a doubt, it will involve the flowering of a thousand conspiracy theories. The 5G coronavirus conspiracy theory is but the beginning.

Just a few days ago in Columbus, Ohio where I live, some of the Trump-supported demonstrators agitating to "liberate" America from preventative quarantine measures were waving a sign that had on it a picture of a rat wearing a Star of David and the caption: “the real plague.”

This, of course, manifests anew one of the most enduring conspiracy theories, the reliable go-to move for conspirators everywhere--the anti-Semitic canard about the Jews secretly running the world.

Being Jewish, albeit one who's been thus far rudely excluded from our people’s Secret World Domination Zoom sessions--and given the popularity and danger of such theories—I thought it worthwhile to try to shed some light on this phenomenon.

A conspiracy theory is a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event. More specifically, as the British psychologist Christopher Thresher-Andrews puts it: “Conspiracy theories are unsubstantiated, less plausible alternatives to the mainstream explanation of an event; they assume everything is intended, with malignity.”

Why are we so susceptible? The answer, of course, is: It’s complicated. Multiple factors and motives—among them economic, historical, and sociological—are involved. Yet as always when it comes to us humans, psychology too plays a major role. Psychological research has uncovered several mechanisms underlying our perpetual penchant for purveying preposterous plots. Here are a few central ones:

First is the fundamental attribution error, which is our tendency to prefer dispositional explanations to situational ones. When we observe an event happening, we are much more likely to attribute it to some intentional, internal motive than to circumstance and happenstance.

Conspiracy theories are by definition dispositional—someone planned this for a purpose. They are thus uniquely satisfying to our minds. Australian philosopher Steve Clarke writes: “As explanations, conspiracy theories are highly dispositional. When conspiracies occur it is because conspirators intend them to occur and act on their intentions … In most cases, the received view, the conventionally accepted nonconspiratorial alternative to a particular conspiracy theory, is a situational explanation.”

Second is confirmation bias and its brother, the belief perseverance phenomenon—two well-known aspects of our cognitive hardware. Confirmation bias refers to the fact that we tend to become attached to our beliefs and to search for (or interpret) information in ways that confirms our preconceptions. Once we settle on a conviction, we will search, remember, and accept only evidence that supports it, while ignoring and neglecting to seek disconfirming evidence. This is why people online gravitate to sites that echo their preexisting beliefs and prejudices.

Belief perseverance refers to the fact that we seek to maintain our beliefs even after the information that originally gave rise to it has been refuted. Once we’re set in our beliefs, evidence to the contrary will be dismissed, actively.

This is why politicians promote polls that show them to be popular (confirmation bias) and label as "fake" those polls that don’t (belief perseverance). This is why when you’re in love, you tend to latch onto everything good about your love object and gloss over or fail to notice warning signs (confirmation bias). When your friends warn you about the love object, you accuse them of lying out of jealousy (belief perseverance).

Thus, ironically, once we settle on a belief, however deluded or implausible (e.g., the earth is flat), we’re highly likely to seek and believe information that supports it (“looks flat to me!”) while rejecting any data to the contrary, however plausible, as false, malevolent, or deluded (“The science? All the scientists are lying”).

A third psychological factor is our desire to be uniquely knowledgeable, to possess knowledge that others don’t. Knowledge is power. And we all prefer feeling powerful to feeling powerless. This is gratifying and empowering for us particularly when the complexity and uncertainty of life feels overwhelming. “Conspiracy theories … supply a seductive ego boost. Believers often consider themselves part of a select in-group that — unlike the deluded masses — has figured out what’s really going on.”

Fourth is our brain’s adaptive capacity for pattern recognition. As Johns Hopkins neurologist Mark Mattson puts it: “Superior pattern processing is the essence of the evolved human brain.” It is, “the fundamental basis of most, if not all, unique features of the human brain including intelligence, language, imagination, invention, and the belief in imaginary entities such as ghosts and gods.”

Indeed, our brain has evolved in a dangerous environment where the ability to "fill in the blanks," to guess the whole from a few parts, conferred important survival advantages. If I can make out from a distance the hidden predator in the bushes, I’m more likely to survive. Thus our brain came to specialize in meaning-making and pattern-finding. In extreme form, this tendency is known as Pareidolia.

While entertaining at times, as when we see a face on the moon and Jesus in a piece of burnt toast, this tendency has a shadow side, since in the absence of a pattern, our brain will tend to invent one and impose it on the world, as when we think that a flipped coin is ‘due’ to hit ‘heads’ after a string of ‘tails,’

Our brain seeks order, cause and effect, and intentionality. But life is filled with chaos, blind chance, illusory correlations, and disorder. When these conditions impinge on us we become distressed, and to reduce the distress, we are compelled to make stories that fit the demands of our brain, rather than the facts of the world; stories in which intentionality, order, coherence, and purpose exist, albeit in hidden form—e.g.: conspiracy. As psychologists Jan-Willem van Prooijen and Karen Douglas conclude in their review of the literature: “Evidence suggests that the aversive feelings that people experience when in crisis—fear, uncertainty, and the feeling of being out of control—stimulate a motivation to make sense of the situation, increasing the likelihood of perceiving conspiracies in social situations."

Moreover, as social animals, our brains have evolved to seek patterns not only in the external world but also in the interpersonal realm. The capacity to guess what another person knows and how that knowledge will affect the person’s behavior, what psychologists call, "theory of mind," develops in early childhood. That ability is foundational for our complex social commerce. In this context, we have evolved to speculate of the intentions of others and pay particular attention to their perceived hostile intentions, since the cost of missing such intentions is higher than the costs of a ‘false alarm.’ Believing falsely that you’re plotting to kill me will not get me killed. But failing to notice your murderous intents will.

Interestingly, the pattern recognition capability that gives rise to conspiracy theorizing also lies at the root of another defining feature of humanity—religion. Conspiracy theories are quite analogous to religion in that, “their contents, forms, and functions parallel those found in beliefs of institutionalized religions.”

Like religions, conspiracy theories tend to assume a powerful, unseen force that is responsible for those things that happen but defy explanation. Like religions, conspiracy theories tend to ascribe power to an entity that is hidden yet active in the world, that is more powerful than us, but not entirely unlike us psychologically (God rages; God forgives).

As with religion, conspiracy believers are uniquely reluctant to be swayed by argument. As law professors Cass Sunstein (University of Chicago) and Adrian Vermeule (Harvard) note: “A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy.”

Finally, like religions, conspiracy theories are, at the core, about community, manifesting our most fundamental tribal impulse—the psychological need to belong, to be part of a well-defined in-group and, by extension, to recognize and fight enemy out-groups. Like religions, conspiracy theories are group phenomena, shared by communication rituals that help adherents manage emotions by, “transforming unspecific anxieties into focused fears.” As in religion, successful (enduring) conspiracy theories produce narratives that are “framed as conflicts over sacred values.” With religion, the false God is never our God. With the conspiracy theory, the menacing shadowy group is never our group. Conspiracy theories are always about ‘the other.’ As psychologist Jan-Willem van Prooijen notes: “the root of conspiracy thinking lies in our ancient instinct to divide the social world into ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ categories.” The same psychological processes that produce God for 'us,' produce conspiracy theories about 'them.'

Our basic psychological structure has remained largely unchanged for as long as we can tell. To wit, ancient biblical stories, not to mention centuries-old Shakespearean plays, speak to us now because the characters in them--their tendencies, fears, struggles, and desires—resemble us greatly. As long as our basic psychology remains unchanged, conspiracy theories will continue to flourish as by-products of the evolved processes of our mind.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-believers-the-psychology-conspiracy-theories

All I know is the last "psychologist" I saw was crazier then a chithouse rat

 

[Chi13]

All I know is the last "psychologist" I saw was crazier then a chithouse rat

A lot of Americans are crazy but I don't think that's a reason to discount what every American says.
That being said, Psychology is far from perfect and does not have all the answers.

 

[Chi13]

The other day ICMag member Chi13 posted about the cause of Conspiracy Theories and ICMag member Hempy McNoodle (no doubt a descendant of the great Scottish McNoodle Clan) replied he had heard Groupthink was the cause of conspiracy theory. I knew that Groupthink sometimes caused decision-making teams to make bad decisions but not about Groupthink as part of conspiracy theory so I looked into Groupthink to see what was what.


I wondered if Groupthink had contributed to the assault on the Capitol and in what way? More specifically: was there Groupthink in the White House? If so, how did poor decision making in the White House almost ruin American Democracy?


My books says: “Groupthink occurs when the cohesiveness and inertia developed in a group or team drives out good decision making or problem solving. The preservation of the team takes precedence over accurate decisions or high-quality task accomplishment. Not enough conflict occurs.”


So what is cohesiveness in a group and what is group inertia?


Group cohesiveness is how well the members relate to one another and think of themselves as a team. You may have heard bosses, even employees, say: ‘we’re like family here’.
And group inertia occurs when members of the group have a history of decisions leading to good/just/important outcomes or have a history of solving tricky problems.


The Academic who first coined the term ‘groupthink’ sees it is caused by a number of factors:

• “Illusion of invulnerability: (Because of our track record we cannot fail.)
• Shared stereotypes: – members disagree with information they do not like by discrediting the source of the information. (Well, you know what they [engineers/blacks/doctors/etc] are like.)
• Rationalising: They reason away problems or issues that prevent the group agreeing. (Well, that’s what s/he always says. Or, that information is low quality.)
• Illusion of Morality: Members believe that as moral individuals they are not likely to make bad decisions.
• Self Censorship: Members keep silent about their misgivings and try to minimise doubts. (I must be wrong if others think differently.)
• Direct pressure: Sanctions are imposed on members who have different viewpoints. (If you’re not going to get along with us then you’ll just have to leave the team. You’re either with us or you’re against us.)
• Mind guarding: Members protect the team from being exposed to disturbing ideas/information. (Don’t listen to them. They’re way off track.)
• Illusion of Unanimity. Members conclude the team has reached a consensus because the most vocal members are in agreement. (If Dave, Melissa and Pam agree … there must be team consensus.)”

My source book is aimed at the Business world and goes on to give six ways Teams can avoid Groupthink. There’s no need to continue with these six ways because my aim here is to add to ICMag member Chi13 post and a clearer understanding of the modern prevalence of Conspiracy Theory.


So have we seen any of the factors listed above play out in U.S. politics recently? Have you seen any mindguarding or rationalising on TV? How about the Illusion of Unanimity?


In terms of group inertia as mentioned above, the Trump administration likely was patting itself on the back from the moment it achieved Office. It seems to me that because achieving Office was no small task it's likely the Trump administration thought itself almost bullet proof!


END PASTE.


I 'll go on with this if there's enuf interest ... what do you say? Pls contribute ...

I would be interested in more. I started this thread to try and open discussion about what was occuring in speakers corner and elsewhere. I have no expertise in Psychology (just 1st year Psych) and the links I posted were only discovered by a simple google search. I have received more info via PM but am yet to wade through it.
As you know I am more interested in how humans behave in groups. I need to read more but am busy with work so only dashing off the odd post here at the moment.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

The other day ICMag member Chi13 posted about the cause of Conspiracy Theories and ICMag member Hempy McNoodle (no doubt a descendant of the great Scottish McNoodle Clan) replied he had heard Groupthink was the cause of conspiracy theory. I knew that Groupthink sometimes caused decision-making teams to make bad decisions but not about Groupthink as part of conspiracy theory so I looked into Groupthink to see what was what.


I wondered if Groupthink had contributed to the assault on the Capitol and in what way? More specifically: was there Groupthink in the White House? If so, how did poor decision making in the White House almost ruin American Democracy?


My books says: “Groupthink occurs when the cohesiveness and inertia developed in a group or team drives out good decision making or problem solving. The preservation of the team takes precedence over accurate decisions or high-quality task accomplishment. Not enough conflict occurs.”


So what is cohesiveness in a group and what is group inertia?


Group cohesiveness is how well the members relate to one another and think of themselves as a team. You may have heard bosses, even employees, say: ‘we’re like family here’.
And group inertia occurs when members of the group have a history of decisions leading to good/just/important outcomes or have a history of solving tricky problems.


The Academic who first coined the term ‘groupthink’ sees it is caused by a number of factors:

• “Illusion of invulnerability: (Because of our track record we cannot fail.)
• Shared stereotypes: – members disagree with information they do not like by discrediting the source of the information. (Well, you know what they [engineers/blacks/doctors/etc] are like.)
• Rationalising: They reason away problems or issues that prevent the group agreeing. (Well, that’s what s/he always says. Or, that information is low quality.)
• Illusion of Morality: Members believe that as moral individuals they are not likely to make bad decisions.
• Self Censorship: Members keep silent about their misgivings and try to minimise doubts. (I must be wrong if others think differently.)
• Direct pressure: Sanctions are imposed on members who have different viewpoints. (If you’re not going to get along with us then you’ll just have to leave the team. You’re either with us or you’re against us.)
• Mind guarding: Members protect the team from being exposed to disturbing ideas/information. (Don’t listen to them. They’re way off track.)
• Illusion of Unanimity. Members conclude the team has reached a consensus because the most vocal members are in agreement. (If Dave, Melissa and Pam agree … there must be team consensus.)”

My source book is aimed at the Business world and goes on to give six ways Teams can avoid Groupthink. There’s no need to continue with these six ways because my aim here is to add to ICMag member Chi13 post and a clearer understanding of the modern prevalence of Conspiracy Theory.


So have we seen any of the factors listed above play out in U.S. politics recently? Have you seen any mindguarding or rationalising on TV? How about the Illusion of Unanimity?


In terms of group inertia as mentioned above, the Trump administration likely was patting itself on the back from the moment it achieved Office. It seems to me that because achieving Office was no small task it's likely the Trump administration thought itself almost bullet proof!


END PASTE.


I 'll go on with this if there's enuf interest ... what do you say? Pls contribute ...

Hello Sat X RB,

You must have completely misread and misunderstood what I wrote. I was not referring to 'conspiracy theorists' as 'group thinkers.' Quite the opposite. It is people who are NOT conspiracy theorists, that are 'group thinkers.' When everyone thinks the same thing, it is because they've been brainwashed. The only people who are actually 'thinking' in this day and age are the people who have been marginalized and labeled as 'conspiracy theorists.'

 

[Chi13]

Hello Sat X RB,

You must have completely misread and misunderstood what I wrote. I was not referring to 'conspiracy theorists' as 'group thinkers.' Quite the opposite. It is people who are NOT conspiracy theorists, that are 'group thinkers.' When everyone thinks the same thing, it is because they've been brainwashed. The only people who are actually 'thinking' in this day and age are the people who have been marginalized and labeled as 'conspiracy theorists.'

So if a conspiracy theorist posts their views online, and others join them in thinking the same thing, then I fail to see the difference? Why are only marginalised people unable to be brainwashed? You have some mighty strange logic. Can't you see a particular issue on it's merits, rather than assuming that only a marginalised, non mainstream view can be right? Also why do you assume that there is no "thinking" involved in rejecting conspiracy theories? I have personally looked into quite a few of them; weighed up the evidence, and found most of them to be flawed.

It seems to me you are just as gullible to misinformation, brainwashing, if not more so. Someone could easily invent a conspiracy, create a website, and you would swallow it hook, line, and sinker. It's not as if some of these people aren't profiting from keeping their pet conspiracy going.

 

[buzzmobile]

Q often mentioned "10 days darkness." So, I'll wait until Freedom Day (Feb 1, 2021), before I give up hope.

What do you think today, Hempy?

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

I think that this is all part of "the plan." I think we are witnessing the great awakening. I think the military is in control. I think the Durham indictments will be coming soon and will be impressive. I think more incidents like the whole Game Stop "short stock" scandal will continue to become public. I think now that Trump is out of the way, they can't call him a dictator when shit goes down. The people are waking very quickly and will side with the military. The National Guard is deployed through March. So, as long as that deployment continues, Hempy will remain hopeful.

 

[mr.brunch]

Hopeful for martial law?
Wow.
Didn’t think I’d ever read that on a pot site.

Peace man.

 

[buzzmobile]

The National Guard is deployed through March. So, as long as that deployment continues, Hempy will remain hopeful.

OK. I will wait some more days with you. That can of beliefs keeps getting kicked down the road, Hempy. I'll see you tomorrow morning. Tophat and tails are the uniform of the day in PA. I'll tell you my story of belief back in 1976. Bellevue from the inside has some great views.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

Hopeful for martial law?
Wow.
Didn’t think I’d ever read that on a pot site.

Peace man.

Well, it's really just a twist on what the nevertrumpers support. You see, Nevertrumpers hope and believe that the troops are in DC to protect the area from "Trump supporters." So, in that case would you support it?

I am hoping that the military will protect us from enemies of the United States. In that case Martial Law is not a bad thing necessarily, because that is the proper use or purpose. It is when it is used nefariously that Martial Law is a problem.

 

[mr.brunch]

The troops are only there because of trump supporters.
Lots of them are getting arrested.
Unless the proud boys and three percenters have turned all anteeefa.

 

[Guest]

Yes, it looks like I have completely misunderstood what you said.


I most strongly disagree that marginalised people ... who may be called 'conspiracy believers' ... are the only people in Society who think for themselves.


I know two conspiracy believers and I would say they believe controversial things from a viewpoint of sullen-ness toward the world. These people come from a culture where education is denigrated. As a consequence of a lack of education and probably social isolation (rural dwellers) these people feel powerless when they look at the fast moving world and can't understand what's going on. They worry about '... being left behind'. And about not getting '... their fair share'.


So from their powerless viewpoints they develop a sneer, yes a sneer, toward mainstream society and so say stuff to stir shit, to demonstrate their sullenness. They are like children who are mischievous in the family ... except in the U.S. these miscreants are allowed to carry guns.


Thinking for one's Self is not easy. It is much easier to glom onto something (religion, a hero, a nice sounding voice, nice sounding idea ... anything that will distract from a self-imposed uncomfortable feeling of inferiority) and talk other peoples' talk ... than say what one really thinks ... or say sorry I don't get that, say again please.


I have felt marginalised all my life. But not because I come from a culture of militant ignorance or because I 'm too fukn lazy to think for myself. I feel marginalised because very few people think for themselves!!! A stranger in a strange land ...

Hello Sat X RB,

You must have completely misread and misunderstood what I wrote. I was not referring to 'conspiracy theorists' as 'group thinkers.' Quite the opposite. It is people who are NOT conspiracy theorists, that are 'group thinkers.' When everyone thinks the same thing, it is because they've been brainwashed. The only people who are actually 'thinking' in this day and age are the people who have been marginalized and labeled as 'conspiracy theorists.'