Debunked: Infowars Study: Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile

AluminumTheory

AluminumTheory

Senior Member.
Update Summary: Conspiracy Theorists siezed upon the publication of the paper "What about building 7?" A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories", and claimed it showed that 9/11 conspiracy theorists were more "sane" than other people. However it does not say that at all, and the author of the study added a note on PubMed to clarify what the study actually means.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23847577
External Quote:

Michael Wood 2014 Nov 30 07:45 a.m.

As the first author of this study, I'd like to address a misleading headline that's been making the rounds lately: the idea that this study says that people who believe 9/11 conspiracy theories are better-adjusted than those who do not. This grossly misinterprets our results: this study says nothing about mental health, and its results do not justify any conclusions about one group of people being more or less "sane" than another.

The main basis for this misinterpretation appears to be the observed difference in hostility between conspiracist (pro-conspiracy-theory) and conventionalist (anti-conspiracy-theory) comments. On average, conventionalist comments tended to be slightly more hostile. In the paper, we interpret this difference as the product of a fairly specific social situation in which the two rival opinion-based groups use different strategies of social influence according to their relative popularity, rather than as an inherent psychological difference. In fact, previous research by Marina Abalakina-Paap and colleagues has shown that dispositional hostility is positively, not negatively, correlated with beliefs in conspiracy theories. However, that finding doesn't necessarily justify the conclusion that conventionalists are better-adjusted than conspiracists. Either of these conclusions relies on the unstated premise that hostility is never good or justified, and that less hostility is always better. This is at least an arguable assumption, and there's certainly no evidence for it here.

In general, I would urge anyone who found this article via the "sanity" article to please think critically about headlines in the future. It is tempting to believe without question self-serving headlines that validate your prejudices and beliefs, but that's precisely when critical thinking is most important.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Post Follows


http://www.infowars.com/study-conspiracy-theorists-sane-government-dupes-crazy-hostile/

External Quote:

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: "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: "The research… showed that people who favoured 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. 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. 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." 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. 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 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

In a nutshell this guy makes the argument that conspiracy theorists are the rational ones because conspiracy theorists are more prominent and vocal on the internet than the non-believers. This of course is assuming that the demographics of what is on the internet is an accurate reflection of real life demographics.

The internet is a hub for anything and everything that is anti-establishment and non-mainstream. A really good example would be that atheists only make up a tiny minority of people, and yet the internet might have you believe that almost everyone is an atheist. Ron Paul was enormously popular on the internet, and yet he didn't even come close to the winning the amount of delegates needed to win the G.O.P. primaries. Even if he had won, I highly doubt that you'll get a majority of voters to vote for a guy who plans to dismantle the Dept of Education. Anarchism, Libertarianism, Socialism, Scientology, Cryptozoology, Dubstep, The Paranormal, and yes Conspiracy Theorists all have large followings on the internet.

I also like the claim that the 9/11 truthers are less hostile than their duped counterparts. Not to say that non believers can't be hostile, but I seriously doubt that they are more hostile than the truthers. Comments on the internet are generally nasty anyway. I'm sure there are a million people leaving nasty comments on various articles and videos right now.
That being said, the conspiracy theorist are generally quite a rowdy bunch and I think that alot of this resonates from a certain radio host.



....And then there is this nice little tidbit of projection :).
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah. I saw this 'study' last night sort of making the rounds.
Not sure how they were able to gather that from looking at a few quotes on the internet.
Anyway. I love this one that a supporter put up in regards to the study.

External Quote:
I have little comment on this except that 'Pancake Theory' only works in Government Reports or with Maple Syrup and a fork..[/]
 
External Quote:
Most notably, and in accordance with the idea that opposition to officialdom is a major component of the conspiracist belief system, conspiracy advocates showed a tendency to spend much more time arguing against the official explanation of 9/11 than advocating an alternative. Conspiracy opponents showed the opposite pattern, advocating their own explanation more than they argued against the opposing one. This pattern of results supports the idea that conspiracy theories have their basis more in opposition to officialdom than in beliefs in specific alternative theories (Dean, 2002; Wood et al., 2012).
For the adherents of the 9/11 Truth Movement examined here, the search for truth consists mostly of finding ways in which the official story cannot be true. There is much less of a focus on defending coherent explanations that can better account for the available evidence. However, conspiracists were more likely to provide direct explanations for the events of 9/11 than their conventionalist counterparts were—for instance, it was more common to see a comment saying "9/11 was an inside job" or "WTC7 was demolished" than "9/11 was done by terrorists" or "WTC7 collapsed because of fires and structural damage." This seems like a paradoxical pattern, but conspiracist comments often simply stated that 9/11 was an inside job as a sort of slogan without much to support it. Many other comments took the form "the official story is impossible, therefore 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy." For instance, one representative comment from a CNN article read, "Inside Job 9/11! If it was a real terrorist attack U.S. military would have blew up the planes while in the air before they could hit any population area!" Furthermore, many of the news articles on which the comments appeared featured the official explanation of 9/11 in some detail, meaning that it may have been less necessary for conventionalists to summarize the conventional account themselves.
http://www.frontiersin.org/Personal..._Differences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409/full#h4
 
Biggerdave said:
The actual paper is here http://www.frontiersin.org/personal...differences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409/abstract

They have grossly misinterpreted the paper.
Click to expand...

Having just read the study - yeah - that is probably an understatement.
And Dr. Barrett appears to have a history of this sort of thing.

From wikipedia
External Quote:
The Anti-Defamation League specifically cites Barrett as one of the leading promoters of anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracy theories as part of a "network of anti-Israel conspiracists who endorse and reinforce each other's work" who "blame Israel for numerous nefarious deeds and false flag operations." along with Gordon Duff, who runs Veterans Today, and Alan Sabrosky
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pete Tar said:
Who's Dr Barrett? One of those involved in the study, or the one who 'interpreted' it 1984 style?
Click to expand...

The original link doesn't have the author of the article on the study but I have seen it on other sites.
So yeah. Barrett's the one that cherry picked this and that from the study and sent it through the spin cycle.
 
I think the key point here is that it is not a study representative of the general population, or even the general conspiracy or skeptic populations, but rather a study of those people who tend to leave comments on news stories about subjects that have conspiracies attached to them.

If you ever read those comments, they are not fine examples of humanity. It's a specific subset, generally a nasty and closed-minded one.
 
Kind of like the CT'rs we deal with, whose only response is name calling, profanity,and/ or blocking, no evidence. Ignorance can be a form of {Max:)) bliss .
 
When it comes to hostility, turns out that CT'rs are also hostile in their own way, as we are well aware. Not saying I haven't slung some mud myself...

External Quote:
In particular, Bratich (2008) has highlighted the hostility of intellectual orthodoxy toward conspiracist explanations for events and the labelling of conspiracists as paranoid or otherwise mentally ill (c.f. Hofstadter, 1964; Kalichman et al., 2010). At the same time, conspiracists are often hostile in a different way, dismissing conventionalists as naïve, gullible, and either unwitting dupes or willing stooges of the conspiracy (Crane, 2008; Byford, 2011). Therefore, we examined the hostility of each persuasive comment, whether characterized by outright insults, threats, dismissive sarcasm, accusations of complicity, or other hostile or insulting content.
They also identified the reason there are more comments by conspiracists. Even though they're a small minority of the overall population, they're a vocal minority on a mission.

External Quote:
In spite of, or perhaps because of, the lack of mainstream public acceptance for their theories, many conspiracists, both prominent and otherwise, appear to see themselves as having a duty to spread their views to the public at large. They often exhort the unthinking masses to "wake up" (e.g., Crane, 2008; Byers, 2009; Icke, 2012). This is a reasonable reaction: given a belief that people's lives are being manipulated by malevolent forces beyond their control, most would probably agree that trying to spread the word about that fact is a good idea. Outspoken conventionalists, such as those in the "skeptic" movement (e.g., Randi, 1982; Sagan, 1995; Shermer, 1997; Novella, 2009), find most conspiracy theories to be misguided at best and destructive at worst, and so make a point of arguing against them in the public sphere.
Perhaps the result of the hostility factor would have been different if they had included in their criteria the kind of hit and run derogatory comments I often see more from conspiracists than debunkers. Then there is the highly emotionally charged subject matter of 9/11. It would be interesting to see what the result would be in analyzing comments on mainstream articles about various weather events.

External Quote:
The comment must not consist solely of insults, ridicule, or threats (e.g., "u stupid sheeple need 2 wake up lol," "Let me know what your home address is, and we can have a frank "discussion" about your idiotic conspiracy theories"). This criterion was adopted because insults on their own are not persuasive, and while insults may be relevant to the hostility and stigma variables, they are irrelevant to the majority of the analyses we wished to conduct.
External Quote:


The comment must not consist solely of "meta" discussion (e.g., "I see the government disinfo machine is working overtime with all the shills posting here," "can't believe CNN is letting these tinfoil hat nutjobs hijack a story about the 9/11 memorial"). As with insults, "meta" comments do not make persuasive arguments, and are in fact about entirely different subject matter—they are concerned with the minutia of discussion rather than with the conspiracy theories and conventional explanations in question.
 
The average person, after being called an 'sheeple' and 'shill' and even worse may well start to get defensive and testy. It is hard to be polite when over and over and over you are insulted and asked the same question that you have answered before.

On one Grist site, discussing GMOs, I know I posted the link to the over 600 studies at least a dozen times. I was call names there and even got some near threats (of the type 'I'd love to pour a bottle of Roundup down your throat" and the like).

I have called a 'shill' for BP, Nalco, 'big pharm', Monsanto and the 'Jewish press', and a BP lawyer, someone working for BP in a social media company and many others. I have had fake FB pages created with name and avatar, I have insulting videos posted on you tube and other video servers. Now why wouldn't that make someone defensive?

I fail at times here.
 
Frontiersin.org (where the study was published) is a fee-based for submission (open access publication), .....in science-related areas. Must pass a "review board" for acceptance.
There are some interesting topics, though they need-not be a "research study". They can be short articles, or abstracts to other studies, commentary, reviews, e-books, events....you name it.
There are "no-fee" categories too.
Seems they are pushing the social network theme.

I'm not typing this to knock the validity of the study or the expertise of it's authors.....that is separate, but the possibility to claim "publication".....always has it's tiers of respectability, and reputation.
 
solrey said:
External Quote:
This is a reasonable reaction: given a belief that people's lives are being manipulated by malevolent forces beyond their control, most would probably agree that trying to spread the word about that fact is a good idea. Outspoken conventionalists, such as those in the "skeptic" movement (e.g., Randi, 1982; Sagan, 1995; Shermer, 1997; Novella, 2009), find most conspiracy theories to be misguided at best and destructive at worst, and so make a point of arguing against them in the public sphere.
Click to expand...

Funny coincidence - at the time you quoted that, I was in a room with three of those four authors.
 
Mick, will you give us a report of your weekend when you return ?

(an extra-credit report...will not affect your final grade .)
 
Stupid said:
Frontiersin.org (where the study was published) is a fee-based for submission (open access publication), .....in science-related areas. Must pass a "review board" for acceptance.
There are some interesting topics, though they need-not be a "research study". They can be short articles, or abstracts to other studies, commentary, reviews, e-books, events....you name it.
There are "no-fee" categories too.
Seems they are pushing the social network theme.

I'm not typing this to knock the validity of the study or the expertise of it's authors.....that is separate, but the possibility to claim "publication".....always has it's tiers of respectability, and reputation.
Click to expand...

There still does seem to be some academic rigour in selection for the articles, especially given there are very few open source journals out there.

External Quote:
The Specialties of Frontiers in Psychology welcome the following tier 1 article types: Book Review, Clinical Case Study, Clinical Trial, Editorial, General Commentary, Hypothesis & Theory, Methods, Mini Review, Opinion, Original Research, Perspective, Review, Specialty Grand Challenge and Technology Report.

When submitting an article to Frontiers in Psychology, authors must submit the material directly to one of the Specialties. The articles are processed by the associate and review editors of the respective Specialty.

Original research articles published through the Specialties will be subjected to the Frontiers Evaluation System after online publication. Authors of the original research articles with the highest impact, as judged by many expert readers, will be invited by the Field Chief Editor of Frontiers in Psychology to write a prestigious Frontiers Focused Review - a tier 2 article. This is referred to as "democratic tiering". The author selection is based on article-level impact metrics of Original Research published in the Frontiers Specialties. Focused Reviews are centered on the original discovery, place it in a wider context, and aim to address the wider audience across all of Psychology.

Open Access Statement
Frontiers' philosophy is that all research is for the benefit of humankind. Research is the product of an investment by society and therefore its fruits should be returned to all people without borders or discrimination, serving society universally and in a transparent fashion.
That is why Frontiers provides online free and open access to all of its research publications. For more information on open access click here.
http://www.frontiersin.org/Psychology/about
 
solrey said:
Perhaps the result of the hostility factor would have been different if they had included in their criteria the kind of hit and run derogatory comments I often see more from conspiracists than debunkers. Then there is the highly emotionally charged subject matter of 9/11. It would be interesting to see what the result would be in analyzing comments on mainstream articles about various weather events.
Click to expand...

The other thing that conspiracy theorists do that debunkers do not is totally shut out the voice. This tactic is most used by chemtrail believers. They seem to be the biggest fans of the echo chamber. No dissenting voices allowed. 9/11 CTers enjoy the back and forth argument, in my experience.
 
"Infowars study" sounds like an oxymoron to me.

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.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It means that if you a believe a conspiracy theory, you will seek a platform to air your views. if you don't....you won't.

If you took a survey of people coming out of the Stretford End of the Old Trafford stadium after a football match. The results would show that 100% of the world's population are Manchester United supporters.
 
I wonder is it possible to contact the authors and have their comments on how their study is being presented?
They either think the representation is accurate or not, and could publish a follow up statement to that effect.
 
Pete Tar said:
I wonder is it possible to contact the authors and have their comments on how their study is being presented?
They either think the representation is accurate or not, and could publish a follow up statement to that effect.
Click to expand...

He already has made several replies on his blog (below). Barrat has taken Dr Wood's research way out of context. I've read the papper and it makes perfect sense. When he and his collegue Dr Douglas talk about conventionalists (us) being more agressive it's refering to a defind parameter of replies. Not all of them.
http://conspiracypsych.com/2013/07/13/setting-the-record-straight-on-wood-douglas-2013/
 
Another explanation from the first author. I've added this to the OP.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23847577
External Quote:

Michael Wood 2014 Nov 30 07:45 a.m.

As the first author of this study, I'd like to address a misleading headline that's been making the rounds lately: the idea that this study says that people who believe 9/11 conspiracy theories are better-adjusted than those who do not. This grossly misinterprets our results: this study says nothing about mental health, and its results do not justify any conclusions about one group of people being more or less "sane" than another.

The main basis for this misinterpretation appears to be the observed difference in hostility between conspiracist (pro-conspiracy-theory) and conventionalist (anti-conspiracy-theory) comments. On average, conventionalist comments tended to be slightly more hostile. In the paper, we interpret this difference as the product of a fairly specific social situation in which the two rival opinion-based groups use different strategies of social influence according to their relative popularity, rather than as an inherent psychological difference. In fact, previous research by Marina Abalakina-Paap and colleagues has shown that dispositional hostility is positively, not negatively, correlated with beliefs in conspiracy theories. However, that finding doesn't necessarily justify the conclusion that conventionalists are better-adjusted than conspiracists. Either of these conclusions relies on the unstated premise that hostility is never good or justified, and that less hostility is always better. This is at least an arguable assumption, and there's certainly no evidence for it here.

In general, I would urge anyone who found this article via the "sanity" article to please think critically about headlines in the future. It is tempting to believe without question self-serving headlines that validate your prejudices and beliefs, but that's precisely when critical thinking is most important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Y
Pentagon ex-UFO chief says conspiracy theorists in government drive spending
Replies
18
Views
3K
Resistor
Resistor
M
Claim: Photos from the Soviet liberation of Auschwitz were faked/staged
Replies
8
Views
989
Hougenai
H
FatPhil
Can AI (ChatGPT etc.) help people out of the rabbit hole?
Replies
12
Views
2K
john.phil
john.phil
Mythic Suns
A.I being used as a debunking tool (MIT experiment)
Replies
2
Views
931
Mythic Suns
Mythic Suns
tryblinking
‘Whistleblower’ video: “The TRUTH about chemtrails from pilots” (Richard Vobe)
Replies
13
Views
954
JMartJr
JMartJr

Latest posts

Back
Top