People don't think they are Conspiracy believers

[Leifer]

Many people we or others might categorize as "conspiracy believers"..... they do not think they are within any conspiracy belief.
They often reject the notion of a conspiracy belief and it's label.....heartily.
They are often admitted conspiracy deniers, although their beliefs often do not carry the burden of evidence required to back-up their beliefs and claims.....yet they still believe it.

(about "bat bombs", in this case)
I am asking for evidence.

 

[Soulfly]

These bat bombs were real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb

It's like that ole saying. Sane people think they are crazy and crazy people think they are sane.

Not calling anyone crazy. Or is it sane?

 

[Hevach]

I can't find the thread, but there was one kicking around the other day about certain turns of phrase conspiracy theorists use a lot. My personal favorite was, "It's not a conspiracy, this is REAL!"

The word "conspiracy" has been tied so closely to "irrational thing crazy people believe" for so long that the word itself has the connotation of being false.

 

[Hama Neggs]

I can't find the thread, but there was one kicking around the other day about certain turns of phrase conspiracy theorists use a lot. My personal favorite was, "It's not a conspiracy, this is REAL!"

The word "conspiracy" has been tied so closely to "irrational thing crazy people believe" for so long that the word itself has the connotation of being false.

Yes... it's really odd, because what they really believe and are claiming is that it IS a real conspiracy. It's hard to converse in a language which is being constantly distorted and redefined like this.

 

[Mick West]

Yes... it's really odd, because what they really believe and are claiming is that it IS a real conspiracy. It's hard to converse in a language which is being constantly distorted and redefined like this.

It becomes important to understand those misconceptions though, if you want to communicate well. Things like "aerosols" being always associated with geoengineering.

 

[Hama Neggs]

It becomes important to understand those misconceptions though, if you want to communicate well. Things like "aerosols" being always associated with geoengineering.

Yes. I didn't understand that for a while- that an "aerosol" wasn't necessarily something sprayed from a can.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Yes. I didn't understand that for a while- that an "aerosol" wasn't necessarily something sprayed from a can.

Very common, due to the vernacular usage of the word "aerosol".

Like not all hand tissues are "Kleenex". (or, vice-versa...some company might be able to trademark the word "aerosol" as part of a brand name)...

 

[Svartbjørn]

Here's the thing... Im a conspiracy theorist. I just dont go too far down the rabbit hole.. For example: I believe the Kennedy Assassination had conspiratorial elements to it.. the injuries involved, etc. I dont go as far as to think that the CIA, or the FBI, or LBJ were behind it.. but JFK had enemies.

The ONLY reason I go that far, is that there's not enough evidence for or against to really prove one way or the other.. the way things sit (at least in my mind) is that it makes more sense to have more than one shooter. Could that be coincidence? its possible.. but Id say its unlikely that youd have two shooters for the same target, on the same day in the same place with the schedule Kennedy had.

This, I think, is where a LOT of people tend to be. The vast majority of people that do tend to believe in some sort of conspiracy in one shape or another, DONT see conspiracies around every single corner.. they're not paranoid. So when you say "conspiracy" the first thing that pops to mind (for me) is that scene from Signs with the family wearing tin foil hats:

Most of that we can attribute to media and what not, and I think thats where the individual in the conversation above was coming from as well. I prefer evidence, you guys all know that.. but there's a part in all of us that goes.. yanno.. MAYBE???.. I think its human nature.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I believe the Kennedy Assassination had conspiratorial elements to it.. the injuries involved, etc. I dont go as far as to think that the CIA, or the FBI, or LBJ were behind it.. but JFK had enemies.

VERY true.... The first, and third parts. The middle? Well....here's where I might "shock" you!

But no, so far, no compelling and undeniable evidence to implicate any of those three "alphabet" names.....yet.

 

[Soulfly]

Here's the thing... Im a conspiracy theorist. I just dont go too far down the rabbit hole.. For example: I believe the Kennedy Assassination had conspiratorial elements to it.. the injuries involved, etc. I dont go as far as to think that the CIA, or the FBI, or LBJ were behind it.. but JFK had enemies.

The ONLY reason I go that far, is that there's not enough evidence for or against to really prove one way or the other.. the way things sit (at least in my mind) is that it makes more sense to have more than one shooter. Could that be coincidence? its possible.. but Id say its unlikely that youd have two shooters for the same target, on the same day in the same place with the schedule Kennedy had.

This, I think, is where a LOT of people tend to be. The vast majority of people that do tend to believe in some sort of conspiracy in one shape or another, DONT see conspiracies around every single corner.. they're not paranoid. So when you say "conspiracy" the first thing that pops to mind (for me) is that scene from Signs with the family wearing tin foil hats:

Most of that we can attribute to media and what not, and I think thats where the individual in the conversation above was coming from as well. I prefer evidence, you guys all know that.. but there's a part in all of us that goes.. yanno.. MAYBE???.. I think its human nature.

Certainly OT but, it's been shown by more than one experiment, that it could have been done with just one shooter. No need to complicate things with someone on the knoll or hiding in the storm drain. There's a thread on that though.

 

[Svartbjørn]

Certainly OT but, it's been shown by more than one experiment, that it could have been done with just one shooter. No need to complicate things with someone on the knoll or hiding in the storm drain. There's a thread on that though.

Oh I know.. Im just saying that from my perspective I can put myself in ppls shoes when they say they're "Not conspiracy theorists" when they are.. its just for specific incidents rather than EVERYTHING.

 

[Leifer]

These bat bombs were real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb

True, but it was an idea, and an experiment, and was ultimately cancelled before implementation. My online acquaintance believed bat-bombs were actually used in WWII Japan.
Perhaps it's an issue for a separate thread, though it's not a very pervasive or popular idea.

More to the point of this thread....my acquaintance assured me he was not a conspiracy believer, yet he believed two or three ideas that were "unknown to the public". When I asked him for any references at all, he had none, and that he had heard of these ideas years ago from a college professor......and he continues to believe them to this day.
(And publicly promoted them, as truth.)
I believe he got upset, that I asked for some references.

 

[Soulfly]

True, but it was an idea, and an experiment, and was ultimately cancelled before implementation. My online acquaintance believed bat-bombs were actually used in Japan.
Perhaps it's an issue for a separate thread, though it's not a very pervasive or popular topic.

No they were not actually deployed in combat. Well, not on Japan and not intentionally, but they did burn down part of an Army base by accident. They were shown to theoretically work even if they weren't actually dropped from planes. Probably just one of those wishing it to be true stories.

 

[Svartbjørn]

I believe he got upset, that I asked for some references.

Thats actually pretty normal.. especially when we have people we consider friends or actually ARE friends that ask us to prove things we believe instead of just taking our word for it. I was the same way for a LONG time.. and then I got reinterested in science about 15 years ago and stopped looking at it as an insult, but more as a challenge. I realized that NOT knowing an answer is MORE important than actually knowing an answer, that failure is and SHOULD be an option. Im sure your friend will come around Leifer, they just have to change the way they see the world, and thats very very very hard to do.

 

[Soulfly]

I believe he got upset, that I asked for some references.

I have run into this many times. Doesn't matter how polite you are or how long you have known someone. Once you question their beliefs, they get defensive.

 

[Leifer]

It's common, the defensiveness......and is often a knee-jerk reaction that happens very close (time-wise) to the discussion at hand.. Their beliefs are being challenged, even if you are polite.
Hopefully, in retrospect, they may see that you were merely asking sensible questions, or trying to have a constructive conversation.
If they indeed claim to "not be a conspiracy believer"......the fact that they now feel like someone is suggesting that they might be one (on a particular subject), brings up the defensive walls. They feel slighted, accused, pigeon-holed, or insulted.

I think most people have several unverified beliefs https://www.metabunk.org/threads/bunk-you-are-willing-to-live-with.1635/.....and we should not expect everyone to research each-and-every one of their beliefs -- ready to hand-out verified references with the click of a button to anyone who might happen to ask.
In a perfect world, maybe.....in reality, not likely.
When I may question a friend's beliefs, I like to tell them that it's 'because I'm interested in their subject' and, "I would love to read some information on this, do you have any ?" (both would be true)......instead of the abrupt "pics, or it didn't happen", or "if you don't have any evidence, your idea is wacko". (extreme example)

I had an idea for a skit for the cable show "Portlandia".....(the alienation of a know-it-all)

a decent idea for a short film......"A brainy-logical guy (or girl, or couple) tries to mingle at a party. But when talking in the party's various group conversations, he poo-poos and corrects each and every lighthearted convo.......adding comments like ...., "but that could never happen" .....and, "studies concur that what you are proposing is in reality, the exact opposite". Within an hour, he is standing alone in a corner, staring at the cat, who's staring at the goldfish in a bowl. Wishing he could speak Felinese - he wants to tell the cat, "...that fish is called Carassius auratus auratus".

 

[Svartbjørn]

It's common, the defensiveness......and is often a knee-jerk reaction that happens very close (time-wise) to the discussion at hand.. Their beliefs are being challenged, even if you are polite.
Hopefully, in retrospect, they may see that you were merely asking sensible questions, or trying to have a constructive conversation.
If they indeed claim to "not be a conspiracy believer"......the fact that they now feel like someone is suggesting that they might be one (on a particular subject), brings up the defensive walls. They feel slighted, accused, or insulted.

I think most people have several unverified beliefs https://www.metabunk.org/threads/bunk-you-are-willing-to-live-with.1635/.....and we should not expect everyone to research each-and-every one of their beliefs -- ready to hand-out verified references with the click of a button to anyone who might happen to ask.
In a perfect world, maybe.....in reality, not likely.
When I may question a friend's beliefs, I like to tell them that it's 'because I'm interested in their subject' and, "I would love to read some information on this, do you have any ?" (both would be true)......instead of the abrupt "pics, or it didn't happen", or "if you don't have any evidence, your idea is wacko". (extreme example)

I had an idea for a skit for the cable show "Portlandia".....(the alienation of a know-it-all)

a decent idea for a short film......"A brainy-logical guy (or girl, or couple) tries to mingle at a party. But when talking in the party's various group conversations, he poo-poos and corrects each and every lighthearted convo.......adding comments like ...., "but that could never happen" .....and, "studies concur that what you are proposing is in reality, the exact opposite". Within an hour, he is standing alone in a corner, staring at the cat, who's staring at the goldfish in a bowl. Wishing he could speak Felinese - he wants to tell the cat, "...that fish is called Carassius auratus auratus".

I agree with ya for the most part, but even with my own beliefs I actually ENJOY it when someone challenges them... it makes me think. To me its like walking up to an instructor to ask a question, and as you're organizing your thoughts for them to come out (usually Im blabbering as they get organized) the answer comes out of now where because I begin to see all the possibilities. That comes from YEARS of not knowing how to do that and just accepting things are they are, instead of trying to figure them out myself.... which is why I come here and enjoy getting beat over the head with math, science, and really odd things in the humor thread.. they challenge my perception of the world and force me to try to see things differently. Im sure, in time, your friend will come to the same realization.. they definitely seem to be the kind of person that thinks a lot.

 

[Mick West]

Defensiveness might be unwarranted, but it's not uncommon. So it's good to try to avoid it. It depends on how well you know a person. And if you don't know them at all, you need to be extra careful.

 

[deirdre]

Wishing he could speak Felinese - he wants to tell the cat, "...that fish is called Carassius auratus auratus".

well if he doesn't know cats can read your mind, then he isn't really a know-it-all

 

[WeedWhacker]

Defensiveness might be unwarranted, but it's not uncommon. So it's good to try to avoid it. It depends on how well you know a person. And if you don't know them at all, you need to be extra careful.

I just attempted these tactics tonight, on YouTube comments. Will see how it pans out.....with a stranger online, of course. Haven't had the experience of an actual 'CT' believer in real life. Others have, as I've read about. This must add an extra level of "difficulty" in a personal relationship, I'd imagine?

 

[Soulfly]

Defensiveness might be unwarranted, but it's not uncommon. So it's good to try to avoid it. It depends on how well you know a person. And if you don't know them at all, you need to be extra careful.

People don't like being told they could be wrong. They like admitting when they are even less. No matter how polite you say it or how you word it, you're essentially telling them they are wrong. You can avoid arguments or worse with some by being polite. With others though, pointing out they could be wrong is perceived as an attack on them so no amount of politeness will suffice.

The more facts you show, the more of a shill you are.

 

[moderateGOP]

Many people we or others might categorize as "conspiracy believers"..... they do not think they are within any conspiracy belief.
They often reject the notion of a conspiracy belief and it's label.....heartily.
They are often admitted conspiracy deniers, although their beliefs often do not carry the burden of evidence required to back-up their beliefs and claims.....yet they still believe it.

(about "bat bombs", in this case)
I am asking for evidence.

View attachment 7945

It helps that alternative publishers come across as legitimate so people believe the books that they sell, since they are often on the shelves next to the latest Dan Brown or RR Martin Books. At least new ones are. Anything with a flashy title that claims to expose the truth about something will sell.

 

[Jason]

Defensiveness might be unwarranted, but it's not uncommon. So it's good to try to avoid it. It depends on how well you know a person. And if you don't know them at all, you need to be extra careful.

I agree and I think it makes you a better person if you don't engage in a conversation of witts with someone who whole heartedly believes in something if your view opposes their's. Sometimes things are better left alone, and I guess this all ties back to having to know the person before you go down that route. Because it could be a deal breaker in a relationship or create an unenjoyable moment or extended period of time in a relationship.

Here's the thing... Im a conspiracy theorist. I just dont go too far down the rabbit hole.. For example: I believe the Kennedy Assassination had conspiratorial elements to it.. the injuries involved, etc. I dont go as far as to think that the CIA, or the FBI, or LBJ were behind it.. but JFK had enemies.

I would say I'm almost exactly like you in this regard. Where there are things I believe happened but don't have the proof for it, or proof it didn't happen. It's these people, like ourselves that you can have an intellectual conversation with. On a forum people are open to this type of debate, and thats why they join, but we still see the defensiveness from time to time. I've learned the hard way in life though, and in the work place I generally have a rule; No politics and No religion. Because these usually end up in heated debates and at times twist peoples perceptions of one another, to the point where the work environment is no longer enjoyable. So it goes back to what @Mick was saying, it's best to avoid these types of conversations with people.

People don't like being told they could be wrong. They like admitting when they are even less. No matter how polite you say it or how you word it, you're essentially telling them they are wrong. You can avoid arguments or worse with some by being polite. With others though, pointing out they could be wrong is perceived as an attack on them so no amount of politeness will suffice.
The more facts you show, the more of a shill you are.

No body like being told they are wrong. I don't care who you are, try telling a kid they are wrong and see the response that comes out of their mouth. It doesn't matter if you're polite or wrap a bow around it, telling someone what they believe is wrong rarely ever ends on a positive note. People who are still forming their opinion on the matter are more open to discussion. So as @Svartbjørn states, he believes in CT's, or because he believes in alternate theories he could be considered someone who believes in a CT, but honestly too me that doesn't make him or me or anyone else for that matter a CT believer. People like that are just on the fence. They aren't 100% sure what happened, but are intelligent enough to consider all possibilities without putting more faith in one theory vs the other. I don't consider that a CT believer. I consider that someone who believes the jury is still out.

I've found, and I know I'm only 1/10th as experienced as most of you, but often having conversations with someone about their beliefs goes much smoother if you just ask questions about what they believe in and LISTEN. Not too prove them wrong, but to learn why they believe or how they came to believe in something. It allows me to go back and research the "who" or "how" or "why" they believe in those things so that I can possibly help someone else. Sometimes just letting the person discuss their beliefs without fear of prosecution builds trust between the two of you so that possibly down the road a more practicle conversation can take place. Letting someone talk is a good form of therapy as well, and it honestly does wonders (anyone with a female companion should know this to be true).

The problem with the "skeptic" or "debunker" is they are so used to proving they are right all the time, that they forget what it feels like to be wrong sometimes. They have their list of facts and reasons why the CT believers are wrong all nicely tucked away for future conversation, and sometimes they don't actually "hear" what the believer is saying. They go right into fight mode or regurgitation mode of the nicely stored away "fact" sheet, without considering why the person believes what they do. Sometimes facts aren't the only reason why someone believes in something, it could be faith or a "gut" feeling and all the facts in the world won't persuade them to not "feel" the way they feel "at that time".

 

[deirdre]

They go right into fight mode or regurgitation mode of the nicely stored away "fact" sheet, without considering why the person believes what they do. Sometimes facts aren't the only reason why someone believes in something, it could be faith or a "gut" feeling and all the facts in the world won't persuade them to not "feel" the way they feel "at that time".

it's not regurgitation, it's repetition. It's not the skeptics fault if people keep bringing up (regurgitating)the same bunk over and over. the facts are the facts.

it doesn't matter if I 'feel' the sun revolves around the Earth, my science teacher is going to keep repeating the science until I learn the actual facts. It's ME that needs to learn to listen, not the science teacher.

 

[Soulfly]

It's not the person pointing out I'm wrong that I should be upset at though.

 

[Jason]

it's not regurgitation, it's repetition. It's not the skeptics fault if people keep bringing up (regurgitating)the same bunk over and over. the facts are the facts.

True, but each individual who believes in the CT or questions the CT is different. So while the facts might be the facts, each person could possibly believe in it for different reasons.

 

[Jason]

It's not the person pointing out I'm wrong that I should be upset at though.

I agree Soul, and again this also depends on the person's personality. I also think when a communication involves "your wrong and I'm right" there are mixed feelings swirling around, and people interpret those feelings the wrong way. "Assuming" you might be knocking their intelligence, or perhaps underminding their belief structure, even though you (understood) might not be doing neither of them. It's so hard to judge how someone will react because often people hide behind fictitious fronts to protect their ego(s)..

 

[Jason]

it doesn't matter if I 'feel' the sun revolves around the Earth, my science teacher is going to keep repeating the science until I learn the actual facts. It's ME that needs to learn to listen, not the science teacher.

With children and college students, yes I agree. But in college, not seminar formats, but in smaller classes it's often encouraged to argue the opposing view in class, and to question the professor. In the real world, you aren't a teacher nor am I, and neither is Mick. So when we are talking to an individual, we can't have that way about us. "I know the facts, so you need to listen to me", because how many times has that worked to your satisfaction. I'm betting rarely if any.

 

[Mick West]

Assigning blame or responsibility to the believers of bunk is generally irrelevant, and often counterproductive.

 

[deirdre]

I agree Soul, and again this also depends on the person's personality. I also think when a communication involves "your wrong and I'm right" there are mixed feelings swirling around, and people interpret those feelings the wrong way. "Assuming" you might be knocking their intelligence, or perhaps underminding their belief structure, even though you (understood) might not be doing neither of them. It's so hard to judge how someone will react because often people hide behind fictitious fronts to protect their ego(s)..

I don't know. I kinda think if they are arguing their side (the CTs) there is a reason for it. I don't think MOST CTs are trying to recruit new members. I think at times (not that I've pondered it that deeply) they WANT to be debunked. I mean my friends are into a bunch of new age stuff but they don't go about arguing with people about them or pushing their ideas on people. and I don't bring up stuff I "believe" that 'can't' be confirmed with the scientific method. <just an idea to think about.

 

[Jason]

It's not the person pointing out I'm wrong that I should be upset at though.

So how do you tell someone they are wrong, without hurting their feelings?

 

[Mick West]

With children and college students, yes I agree. But in college, not seminar formats, but in smaller classes it's often encouraged to argue the opposing view in class, and to question the professor. In the real world, you aren't a teacher nor am I, and neither is Mick. So when we are talking to an individual, we can't have that way about us. "I know the facts, so you need to listen to me", because how many times has that worked to your satisfaction. I'm betting rarely if any.

People generally don't do that. The key is to avoid the perception of that. Present info in a way that is verifiable and is based on things they understand.

 

[Jason]

I don't know. I kinda think if they are arguing their side (the CTs) there is a reason for it. I don't think MOST CTs are trying to recruit new members. I think at times (not that I've pondered it that deeply) they WANT to be debunked. I mean my friends are into a bunch of new age stuff but they don't go about arguing with people about them or pushing their ideas on people. and I don't bring up stuff I "believe" that 'can't' be confirmed with the scientific method. <just an idea to think about.

I often feel the same way @deirdre in that they want to be debunked at times, or say it so many times so they can believe it or see if it makes sense the more they say it. Often people will try to see if they can get someone else to believe what they believe just to see if they can do it or to reinforce what they believe.

 

[Jason]

People generally don't do that. The key is to avoid the perception of that. Present info in a way that is verifiable and is based on things they understand.

I agree Mick, but how do you avoid the perception of "that", while listing the verifiable facts... To me at least, that seems to be the biggest road block or hurdle for any debunker..

 

[Mick West]

So how do you tell someone they are wrong, without hurting their feelings?

You lead them to it by asking them questions to clarify their belief, and show them facts they will find interesting and not be threatened by.

Some people have a hair trigger. I find that going very slowly works better there. Don't do much in one interaction. Plant seeds. Take weeks or months.

 

[SR1419]

show them facts they will find interesting and not be threatened by.

That seems relatively subjective...and/or isn't any fact that contradicts their belief almost by definition threatening?

 

[Jason]

Some people have a hair trigger. I find that going very slowly works better there. Don't do much in one interaction. Plant seeds. Take weeks or months.

Has this always been your approach Mick, or is it something you learned while managing these sites. Don't mean to veer OT, but how many people have you and your site(s) (and members) helped along the way that you know of. Have you ever been able to quantify you services, with respect to those you've helped in terms of numbers. Because at the end of the day, that's what this is all about.

 

[deirdre]

In the real world, you aren't a teacher nor am I, and neither is Mick. So when we are talking to an individual, we can't have that way about us. "I know the facts, so you need to listen to me", because how many times has that worked to your satisfaction. I'm betting rarely if any

well I'm female and not ultra-intelligent so it's really a different thing. People aren't 'threatened' by females the same way they are by intelligent men.

 

[Mick West]

That seems relatively subjective...and/or isn't any fact that contradicts their belief almost by definition threatening?

It's not binary. Some things contradict to a lower degree than others - like old photos of clouds don't necessarily contradict all views about HAARP, but they provide useful context, and might promote thought.

There are shades of grey in all thing, when we are talking about communication.

 

[SR1419]

It's not binary. Some things contradict to a lower degree than others - like old photos of clouds don't necessarily contradict all views about HAARP, but they provide useful context, and might promote thought.

There are shades of grey in all thing, when we are talking about communication.

I guess its all in the delivery