In 2007 I first entered into the online debate of the 9/11 WTC collapses. The forum I chose was not mainstream 9/11 debate and I was the only engineer posting on the single thread dedicated to 9/11 CT. The single thread was intended to prevent "woo" from spreading to 'contaminate" the remainder of a high-standard biological and evolutionary science forum.To belong to a group where there's a sort of group identity of being the smart ones ridiculing either overtly or covertly the stupider or the more gullible types. Seeking this type of self-serving emotional payoff (of feeling special and smarter) can sometimes create toxicity, unnecessary divisiveness and inability to reflect on one's own biases and blind spots.
I identified what I thought was the obvious problem with claims and misunderstandings. Posted this crude graphic.
A year or so later - early 2009 - I moved onto a "mainstream forum for 9/11". Posted the same graphic. I did not realise that I was going against the prevailing and errant wisdom of a "...sort of group identity of being the smart ones ridiculing either overtly or covertly the stupider or the more gullible types". A "truther" researcher put the same issue into mainstream discussion early in 2009. And all hell broke loose as the "group identity of being the smart ones" set to " ridiculing
The phenomenon of social or group dynamics and maintaining status and elitist "cliques" is not unique.
So true.And hence is not helpful to the otherwise laudable discussions we have here on MB amongst the members.