Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Interesting study on 911 conspiracy theorist.

Options
  • 24-05-2009 9:04pm
    #1
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭


    An upcoming report in Applied Cognitive Psychology offers a preliminary psychological profile of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies.
    Goertzel says the new study provides an intriguing but partial look at the inner workings of conspiracy thinking. Such convictions critically depend on what he calls “selective skepticism.” Conspiracy believers are highly doubtful about information from the government or other sources they consider suspect. But, without criticism, believers accept any source that supports their preconceived views, he says.

    “Arguments advanced by conspiracy theorists tell you more about the believer than about the event,” Goertzel says.

    Swami’s finding that 9/11 conspiracy believers frequently spoke with likeminded individuals supports the notion that “conspiracy thinkers constitute a community of believers,” remarks historian Robert Goldberg of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. Goldberg has studied various conspiracy theories in the United States.

    Conspiracy thinkers share an optimistic conviction that they can find “the truth,” spread it to the masses and foster social change, Goldberg asserts.

    Most participants expressed either no support or weak support for 16 conspiracy beliefs about 9/11. These beliefs included: “The World Trade Center towers were brought down by a controlled demolition” and, “Individuals within the U.S. government knew of the impending attacks and purposely failed to act on that knowledge.”

    Much as Swami’s team suspected, beliefs in 9/11 conspiracy theories were stronger among individuals whose personalities combined suspicion and antagonism toward others with intellectual curiosity and an active imagination.
    The study, still unpublished, shows that conspiracy believers displayed a greater propensity than nonbelievers to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence.

    “It seems likely that conspiratorial beliefs serve a similar psychological function to superstitious, paranormal and, more controversially, religious beliefs, as they help some people to gain a sense of control over an unpredictable world,” French says.

    Article Here


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    espinolman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭espinolman


    Diogenes wrote: »
    An upcoming report in Applied Cognitive Psychology offers a preliminary psychological profile of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies.








    Article Here

    :D:D I read that Article , it is absolutely hilarious . :D:D


  • Options
    #3
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    Apart from finding it funny what did both of you make of it?


  • Options
    #4
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    6th wrote: »
    Apart from finding it funny what did both of you make of it?

    Well lets look at one part of it.
    Conspiracy believers are highly doubtful about information from the government or other sources they consider suspect. But, without criticism, believers accept any source that supports their preconceived views, he says.

    If we take the Bilderberg thread alone, there are several posters who will be completely dismissive of mainstream media, but happily believe the AFP, Infowars or wisejournal.


  • Options
    #5
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    Diogenes wrote: »
    Well lets look at one part of it.



    If we take the Bilderberg thread alone, there are several posters who will be completely dismissive of mainstream media

    How do you know that? can you read peoples minds? do you have a crystal ball by any chance?

    Charlie Skelton, Guardian journalist is mainstream media and I certainly am not dismissive of what he said, are you?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/seri...lderberg-files


  • Options
    #6
    DubTony
    Registered Users Posts: 3,268 ✭✭✭DubTony


    Trolling again Diogenes?

    Psychology forum is here


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    DubTony wrote: »
    Trolling again Diogenes?

    Psychology forum is here

    That's right this article has nothing to do with conspiracies.

    Oh wait, yes it does.

    Personally I think everyone is selective with their skepticism on some level.

    Here's a good article on it.
    http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4134


  • Options
    #8
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    DubTony infracted.
    WaekUp warned for thanking DubTony's post.


  • Options
    #9
    tony 2 tone
    Registered Users Posts: 2,749 ✭✭✭tony 2 tone


    WakeUp wrote: »
    How do you know that? can you read peoples minds? do you have a crystal ball by any chance?

    Charlie Skelton, Guardian journalist is mainstream media and I certainly am not dismissive of what he said, are you?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/seri...lderberg-files

    Skelton started to write the report as a joke or rather in a humours style, until he got followed and arrested. But if he had written the whole thing as a piss take would you still be linking to it as an example? A comedy writer is a strange choice to cover some thing like that.


  • Options
    #10
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    Not really, many comedians has shown great insight into issues we face. The way they put it accross may be different but the messages and ideas are still there.


  • Options
    #11
    espinolman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭espinolman


    Diogenes wrote: »
    An upcoming report in Applied Cognitive Psychology offers a preliminary psychological profile of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies.







    http://static.boards.ie/vbulletin/images/smilies/eek.gif
    Article Here

    Is the purpose of this psychological profiling to determine who gets sent to the fema (concentration) camps ! :eek:

    I see a conspiracy in this psychological profiling , what is the real reason behind it !


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    ilivetolearn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭ilivetolearn


    espinolman wrote: »
    Is the purpose of this psychological profiling to determine who gets sent to the fema (concentration) camps ! :eek:

    I see a conspiracy in this psychological profiling , what is the real reason behind it !

    According to the profiling thats exactly how someone of your psychological disposition would be expected to think. :D

    Jokes aside, I do see the merit to the study but I fear that many might interpret it a means of corroborating their preconcieved beliefs e.g. "I knew those conspiracy theorists were cooks all along". If you buy into NWO centric theories then you begin to think that this works favorably for the culprits.

    Rather than a study like this being used to deter or 'knock' anyone pursuing conspiracy theorists it instead should promote a caution in terms of balanced critical thinking (and not the cessatation of critical thinking).


  • Options
    #13
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    ilivetolearn wrote:

    Rather than a study like this being used to deter or 'knock' anyone pursuing conspiracy theorists it instead should promote a caution in terms of balanced critical thinking (and not the cessatation of critical thinking).

    The problem being most conspiracy theorists feel they are being "sceptical" or engaging in "critical thinking" when they tell us "Nazi's built a secret city on the Sth Pole" or "Mayans were visited by ETs". They are often insanely biased against any "mainstream" media or "government" source, yet will swallow any "alternative" source without question.


  • Options
    #14
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    tony 2 tone wrote: »
    Skelton started to write the report as a joke or rather in a humours style, until he got followed and arrested. But if he had written the whole thing as a piss take would you still be linking to it as an example? A comedy writer is a strange choice to cover some thing like that.

    But it isnt a piss take is it? or is that how you see it? your entitled to your opinion if thats the way you see it then fair enough but I would disagree. I appreciate you responding to some questions Diogenes blatanty dodged though. Diogenes brazenly stated several people on a certain thread are "completely dissmissive" to main stream media, which unless he has some magical powers of insight none of the rest of us have is a very foolish thing to state how can anyone say something like that. I then posted the link as example of someone in "mainstream" media who I wasnt dismissive of to highlight the sillyness of Diogenes original comment. I might add aswell Im not "completely dismissive" of everything I see and read in "mainstream" media but the flip side of that is I dont believe in everything I read and see in it also, do you?


  • Options
    #15
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    ilivetolearn wrote: »
    According to the profiling thats exactly how someone of your psychological disposition would be expected to think. :D

    Jokes aside, I do see the merit to the study but I fear that many might interpret it a means of corroborating their preconcieved beliefs e.g. "I knew those conspiracy theorists were cooks all along". If you buy into NWO centric theories then you begin to think that this works favorably for the culprits.

    Rather than a study like this being used to deter or 'knock' anyone pursuing conspiracy theorists it instead should promote a caution in terms of balanced critical thinking (and not the cessatation of critical thinking).

    Your last comment is very fair and balanced. I think its also worth pointing out that at the moment this "study" is yet to be published and put out for proper debate. As things stand its nothing more than one man and his "teams" opinion. Can any here produce a single piece of evidence to back up this "study"? or are you just taking his "word" for it.


  • Options
    #16
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    Diogenes wrote: »
    The problem being most conspiracy theorists feel they are being "sceptical" or engaging in "critical thinking" when they tell us "Nazi's built a secret city on the Sth Pole" or "Mayans were visited by ETs". They are often insanely biased against any "mainstream" media or "government" source, yet will swallow any "alternative" source without question.

    I see you downgraded from "completely dismissive" to "often insanely biased" if that is indeed downgrading. Again I would ask you how you know this? How do you know what somebody is 100% thinking? do you mean to say "in my humble opinion" or "Im just guessing"?, is that what your trying to say?...


  • Options
    #17
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    Diogenes wrote: »
    Well lets look at one part of it.

    Quote:
    Conspiracy believers are highly doubtful about information from the government or other sources they consider suspect. But, without criticism, believers accept any source that supports their preconceived views, he says.

    If we take the Bilderberg thread alone, there are several posters who will be completely dismissive of mainstream media, but happily believe the AFP, Infowars or wisejournal.


    Few more questions for you Diogenes……

    Keeping in mind that you’ve put a medical “study”, still unpublished, up for debate on a conspiracy theory forum, what authority do you have as OP , as you said in your own words to “look at one part of it” or any part of it for that matter.

    Furthermore, what authority do you have “to look at” any part of a medical “study”, still unpublished, regardless of discipline, and then attempt to link its findings to back up something you hold as a personal belief?

    Are you a qualified psychologist?

    If so…

    Where did you study psychology?

    What qualifications do you hold and in what particular discipline?

    Are you qualified to make judgements and pass comments on a psychological profile of any description?

    What exactly do you know about applied cognative psychology?


    Im trying to ascertain if your actually qualified and therefore know what your talking about, or did you merely stumble across this article and are speculating and agreeing with the author of this “study” as it happens to fit in with your own personal “beliefs”.?


  • Options
    #18
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,226 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    WakeUp wrote: »
    Few more questions for you Diogenes……

    Keeping in mind that you’ve put a medical “study”, still unpublished, up for debate on a conspiracy theory forum, what authority do you have as OP , as you said in your own words to “look at one part of it” or any part of it for that matter.

    Furthermore, what authority do you have “to look at” any part of a medical “study”, still unpublished, regardless of discipline, and then attempt to link its findings to back up something you hold as a personal belief?

    Are you a qualified psychologist?

    If so…

    Where did you study psychology?

    What qualifications do you hold and in what particular discipline?

    Are you qualified to make judgements and pass comments on a psychological profile of any description?

    What exactly do you know about applied cognative psychology?


    Im trying to ascertain if your actually qualified and therefore know what your talking about, or did you merely stumble across this article and are speculating and agreeing with the author of this “study” as it happens to fit in with your own personal “beliefs”.?

    I don't think Diogenes is stating that anything in that article is stone cold fact, I think he mainly presented it here to discuss the points and ideas raised by the article. There's no need for Diogenes to answer any of the above questions in my opinion. He showed us part of an article relating to conspiracy theories, he gave his opinion on the matter, he started a discussion.

    Believe me, I've seen worse on this forum


  • Options
    #19
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    WakeUp wrote: »
    Are you a qualified psychologist?

    If so…

    Where did you study psychology?

    What qualifications do you hold and in what particular discipline?

    Are you qualified to make judgements and pass comments on a psychological profile of any description?

    What exactly do you know about applied cognative psychology?


    Im trying to ascertain if your actually qualified and therefore know what your talking about, or did you merely stumble across this article and are speculating and agreeing with the author of this “study” as it happens to fit in with your own personal “beliefs”.?

    Wakeup, people have been infracted/banned for asking personal questions on here. This is your only warning for this.

    Diogenes, you dont have to answer these questions.

    If anyone wshes to ask someone else about their lives I suggest using PM.


  • Options
    #20
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    As WakeUp has already noted, the report is currently unpublished. Preliminary results from unpublished reports aren't worth the paper they're not printed on.

    Even assuming the results are well-formed, and the study well conducted, the question as to what one can infer from the results is far from simple.

    Without trying to draw the wrath of 6th, I suspect that WakeUp's questions are a direct reference to the second sentence in the bolded section of the content Diogenes originally posted (and again quoted in post 4)

    The idea of accepting sources which agree with preconceived views is by no means unique to any identifiable group that I can think of (except, obviously, the group of people who accept sources which agree with preconceived views).


  • Options
    #21
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    6th wrote: »
    Wakeup, people have been infracted/banned for asking personal questions on here. This is your only warning for this.

    Diogenes, you dont have to answer these questions.

    If anyone wshes to ask someone else about their lives I suggest using PM.

    Fair enough wont do that again. Chances are Diogenes wouldnt have answered anyway as he seems to picking and choosing who to reply to and who to ignore.

    What about these two, do they still stand? if they dont I will edit this particular post and delete them strait away.

    Keeping in mind that you’ve put a medical “study”, still unpublished, up for debate on a conspiracy theory forum, what authority do you have as OP , as you said in your own words to “look at one part of it” or any part of it for that matter.

    Furthermore, what authority do you have “to look at” any part of a medical “study”, still unpublished, regardless of discipline, and then attempt to link its findings to back up something you hold as a personal belief?

    I'll make it easy for him aswell and give him two possible answers all he has to do is nominate , A or B.

    A> I have no authority whatsoever Im just speculating on a medical article I stumbled across online. Its 100% conjecture, my personal opinion only and its not possible for me to back up what I say in any meaningful scientific way.

    B> I 100% know what Im talking about and Im making this statement with total authority. I have complete knowledge of the medical topic being discussed.

    keep in mind what your all attempting to "discuss" here. This is a medical study after all , unpublished aswell, I think its very important this is pointed out clearly before you start "discussing" it any further.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    WakeUp wrote: »

    I'll make it easy for him aswell and give him two possible answers all he has to do is nominate , A or B.

    A> I have no authority whatsoever Im just speculating on a medical article I stumbled across online. Its 100% conjecture, my personal opinion only and its not possible for me to back up what I say in any meaningful scientific way.

    B> I 100% know what Im talking about and Im making this statement with total authority. I have complete knowledge of the medical topic being discussed.

    keep in mind what your all attempting to "discuss" here. This is a medical study after all , unpublished aswell, I think its very important this is pointed out clearly before you start "discussing" it any further.

    Wow that's a bit of a false dichotomy, don't you think?

    Have you not seen people here reject a source out of hand and then accept another source uncritically?

    Case and point from the Bilderberg thread,and probably to what Diogenes was referring to
    derry wrote: »
    Man I send lots of info to RTE and other state media to say report the real world news and they never do.
    So now I dont even listen to Irish news or radio much just the real news on GCN and Alex Jones from www.infowars.com or Irish section www.info-wars.org or the Irish journal www.wiseupjournal.com

    Do you see how someone might make the connection between this and the part of the article that talks about people being more accepting of source that agree with their beliefs?


  • Options
    #23
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    paddyirishman85 wrote: »
    I don't think Diogenes is stating that anything in that article is stone cold fact, I think he mainly presented it here to discuss the points and ideas raised by the article. There's no need for Diogenes to answer any of the above questions in my opinion. He showed us part of an article relating to conspiracy theories, he gave his opinion on the matter, he started a discussion.

    Believe me, I've seen worse on this forum

    What your saying there is easily understood. What is not so easy for me to get my head around is how you can even begin to "discuss" a medical study, an upublished one at that, in any meaningfull way. That is unless your medically qualified to begin "discussing" it in the first place. Im not asking if you are thats just my opinion. In my opinion this thread does not belong on a conspiracy forum, it should be locked and no further "discussing" of it take place.


  • Options
    #24
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    King Mob wrote: »
    Wow that's a bit of a false dichotomy, don't you think?

    Have you not seen people here reject a source out of hand and then accept another source uncritically?

    Case and point from the Bilderberg thread,and probably to what Diogenes was referring to



    Do you see how someone might make the connection between this and the part of the article that talks about people being more accepting of source that agree with their beliefs?

    No I disagree with what your saying there as far as Im concerned this thread does not belong here. As I have already pointed out the only people who should be "discussing" a medical study , its not even published yet , are medical professionals thats just my personal opinion.


  • Options
    #25
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    WakeUp wrote: »
    No I disagree with what your saying there as far as Im concerned this thread does not belong here. As I have already pointed out the only people who should be "discussing" a medical study , its not even published yet , are medical professionals thats just my personal opinion.

    And there have been dozens of scientific articles throw around here both in support of but most against CTs. And some of those articles are of more dubious quality that this one.
    Why is this one any different?

    Could it be because you don't agree with its content?


  • Options
    #26
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,226 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    WakeUp wrote: »
    What your saying there is easily understood. What is not so easy for me to get my head around is how you can even begin to "discuss" a medical study, an upublished one at that, in any meaningfull way. That is unless your medically qualified to begin "discussing" it in the first place. Im not asking if you are thats just my opinion. In my opinion this thread does not belong on a conspiracy forum, it should be locked and no further "discussing" of it take place.

    Ok, so...

    We shouldn't discuss aliens, as we are not scientists

    We shouldn't discuss the media, as we are not journalists

    We shouldn't discuss possible controlled demolition on 9/11, as we are not demolition experts

    We shouldn't discuss the moon landings, as we are not astronauts.


    Do you get what I'm saying? We don't need to be medical or psychology experts to discuss the ideas presented by a medical study, whether verified or not. Discussing ideas requires no proof or expertise. Only our own opinions. Which believe me, we all have plenty of


  • Options
    #27
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    King Mob wrote: »
    And there have been dozens of scientific articles throw around here both in support of but most against CTs. And some of those articles are of more dubious quality that this one.
    Why is this one any different?

    Could it be because you don't agree with its content?

    Personally I havent seen these "dozenz of scientific articles" you talk of but thats irrelevant anyway Im talking about this particular "study".

    You say this "study" is "quality! see thats what Im getting at how do you know its quality when it hasnt even been published yet and put out for scholarly debate? yet according to you its quality.

    Whats "quality" about it, is it the authors use of words? the way he puts his sentences together? unless your qualified is such matters how could you possible describe this as quality? please explain what you mean by that.


  • Options
    #28
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    paddyirishman85 wrote: »
    Ok, so...

    We shouldn't discuss aliens, as we are not scientists

    We shouldn't discuss the media, as we are not journalists

    We shouldn't discuss possible controlled demolition on 9/11, as we are not demolition experts

    We shouldn't discuss the moon landings, as we are not astronauts.


    Do you get what I'm saying? We don't need to be medical or psychology experts to discuss the ideas presented by a medical study, whether verified or not. Discussing ideas requires no proof or expertise. Only our own opinions. Which believe me, we all have plenty of

    This may be so but keep in mind that when youve finished "discussing" this unpublished medical "study" that hasnt even been discussed in the open yet by qualified people, any conclusions that you draw from your "discussion" are irrelevant and totally meaningless, and can not be backed up in any scientific way by any of you, thats all I say,


  • Options
    #29
    Calverton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭Calverton


    espinolman wrote: »
    Is the purpose of this psychological profiling to determine who gets sent to the fema (concentration) camps ! :eek:

    I see a conspiracy in this psychological profiling , what is the real reason behind it !

    I agree.

    This is the fact of the matter.


  • Options
    #30
    ilivetolearn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭ilivetolearn


    paddyirishman85 wrote: »
    Ok, so...

    Do you get what I'm saying? We don't need to be medical or psychology experts to discuss the ideas presented by a medical study, whether verified or not. Discussing ideas requires no proof or expertise. Only our own opinions.

    Wow, just wow. If that were the case then this forum wouldn't be stagnating so much. Certain skeptics are the first to ridicule theories, posts and posters based on the absence of evidence.

    Suddenly we find ourselves in a situation where the tables are turned on the OP of a skeptic yet he expects to be exempt from any scrutiny that certain skeptics so rigrously apply in their post (I'm addressing the posts here rather than the posters).

    I think paddyirishman is missing wakeups point. He's not so much implying that discussions are fruitless without verifiable proof as he is competently reprimanding the posts of a skeptic who has fallen culprit to that which certain skeptics so commonly condemn.

    The beauty of all this is that Wakeup has (deliberatley I'd imagine to prove a point) done this in an almost exact exhausted vernacular (in fact almost verbatim) of the posts of the skeptics on this forum who so often scream out 'baseless speculation'.

    A fascinating role reversal has unfolded that is very contrary to the OP.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    WakeUp wrote: »
    Personally I havent seen these "dozenz of scientific articles" you talk of but thats irrelevant anyway Im talking about this particular "study".
    The threads about fluoridation and vaccines tend to have a lot of scientific papers quoted.
    How are those different exactly?
    WakeUp wrote: »
    You say this "study" is "quality! see thats what Im getting at how do you know its quality when it hasnt even been published yet and put out for scholarly debate? yet according to you its quality.

    Whats "quality" about it, is it the authors use of words? the way he puts his sentences together? unless your qualified is such matters how could you possible describe this as quality? please explain what you mean by that.
    Because the website is a reputable one and the paper will be published in a reputable journal.

    Why exactly isn't it of good quality exactly?
    WakeUp wrote: »
    This may be so but keep in mind that when youve finished "discussing" this unpublished medical "study" that hasnt even been discussed in the open yet by qualified people, any conclusions that you draw from your "discussion" are irrelevant and totally meaningless, and can not be backed up in any scientific way by any of you, thats all I say,

    Again how is that any different from any of the other threads in here?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement