The psychology of the CT believers

.......

Anyway, last night I was messaged by a friend who told me that multiple people were warning her to look out for me and I do not even talk to her and she is 1/4000 'friends' I have on there??? These people are indeed paranoid I'd have to say. And I posted I think 3 links on a photo of a CONTRAIL(chemtrail, wink) and later today I tried logging onto Facebook and found out I've been locked out and they are requesting I post my ID to prove my identity. I've looked up to try and find similar people who've come across this and it coincides with my suspicion that I have been reported by many people from the group to cause this to happen. The story is the same, these people didn't do anything wrong except for other people abusing the report button simply because they disagree with the nature of whatever you're posting even though it's not meant as disrespect.

That's when I came here and read your post.

My account was also blocked on Facebook with the message that it was being reported as being or promoting a business.... which of course was complete BS. This may be their latest tactic to report debunker's Facebook accounts, which will get the account closed and all their prior posts also disappear. There are a number of Facebook TOS violations I see from conspiracy cultists (fake names, promoting for businesses (geoengineeringwatch or Infowars)) and by the same token shouldn't their accounts also be cited and closed based on actually violating the Facebook TOS?

Tying this in with this thread; are they aware of their own hypocrisy when they falsely report an account in violation of the TOS when they are in fact violating the TOS? It seems that the CT believers do a lot of projection, there had been a study about people who believe in fictional conspiracies are more likely to engage in conspiring against others.

Here is the link to the study


1
British Journal of Social Psychology (2011)
C

2011 The British Psychological Society
TheBritishPsychologicalSociety
www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Brief report
Does it take one to know one? Endorsementof conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire
Karen M. Douglas

and Robbie M. Sutton
University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
We advance a new account of why people endorse conspiracy theories, arguing that individuals use the social–cognitive tool of projection when making social judgments about others. In two studies, we found that individuals were more likely to endorse conspiracy theories if they thought they would be willing, personally, to participate in the alleged conspiracies. Study 1 established an association between conspiracy beliefs and personal willingness to conspire, which fully mediated a relationship between Machiavellianism and conspiracy beliefs. In Study 2, participants primed with their own morality were less inclined than controls to endorse conspiracy theories – a finding fully mediated by personal willingness to conspire. These results suggest that some people think ‘they conspired’ because they think ‘I would conspire’

..........
Content from External Source
 
I just visited the CAchemtrails Facebook page, and saw this:
cachembanned2.png

I left a single comment, "You ban people with differing viewpoints?"
I was banned within minutes.
 
I left a single comment, "You ban people with differing viewpoints?"
LOL!!! I just left three fast comments, in a row....ah, well....they will disappear, no doubt!!!

I EVEN pointed out that a local "Fox" channel program clip (from YT) about so-called "chem"trails needed to be watched into about the 2:30 point....

I think this is the same YT video from the "CA Chemtrails" FB page (?):



(AGAIN.....please skip to 2:30)....

EDIT to point out that the post above (#203) is ALSO on that website, mockingly.
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting study I came across in my news feed that pretty much reflects the tactics we keep seeing used by the Conspiracy Cultists.

When our beliefs are threatened by facts, we turn to unfalsifiable justifications

It's great to have facts on your side. The fundamentalist is delighted by the archaeological find that tallies with scripture, just as the atheist seizes on the evidence that contradicts it. But when the evidence goes against us, we're less likely to change a belief than to criticise the validity or provenance of the evidence. Now, research suggests that the mere prospect of a factual threat leads us to downplay how much our belief depends on such evidence at all. We become attracted to other, less falsifiable reasons for believing.

Justin Friesen and his colleagues conducted a series of studies each with a hundred or more participants. The first presented participants with a summary statement from a conference on science and God. When it suggested that science could one day settle the question of God's existence, religious participants wavered in their religious conviction, rating it significantly lower than those told that science was not armed to answer such questions. The very possibility that the religious belief was falsifiable made it vulnerable.

A subsequent study presented the discovery of the Higgs Boson as either a threat to or unlikely to affect matters of religion. Asked what reasons underpinned their belief, religious participants gave more importance to unfalsifiable statements such as "living a moral life would be impossible without God" when told the particle was a threat, and relatively less to evidence-linked statements such as "historical and archaeological evidence shows how God intervened in the world."

This effect wasn't restricted to religious belief. In another study, supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage were shown data on life outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples; by presenting these outcomes as either positive or troubled, participants were exposed to data that either supported or undermined their position. When the facts were on their side, they rated the issues of same-sex marriage and child-rearing as a matter for evidence to decide; when the facts were against them, they saw it as more a matter of opinion.

The authors speculate that this tendency to revert to unfalsifiable justifications may mean that many beliefs, over time, shear off their evidential component and become increasingly unchallengeable. But they also note that unfalsifiability may have important psychological value, for instance in making inviolable beliefs such as "love is real" or "genocide is wrong", whose compromise could otherwise be deeply distressing and disorientating. Cherish or bemoan it, our belief systems are laced with unfalsifiable aspects that won't be budged by evidence alone.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
2011 The British Psychological Society
Does it take one to know one? Endorsementof conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire
Karen M. Douglas

and Robbie M. Sutton
University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
We advance a new account of why people endorse conspiracy theories, arguing that individuals use the social–cognitive tool of projection when making social judgments about others. In two studies, we found that individuals were more likely to endorse conspiracy theories if they thought they would be willing, personally, to participate in the alleged conspiracies. Study 1 established an association between conspiracy beliefs and personal willingness to conspire, which fully mediated a relationship between Machiavellianism and conspiracy beliefs. In Study 2, participants primed with their own morality were less inclined than controls to endorse conspiracy theories – a finding fully mediated by personal willingness to conspire. These results suggest that some people think ‘they conspired’ because they think ‘I would conspire’
..........
[/EX]

I don't think this is accurate at all.
Even as disconnected as they are from the facts of reality, none of the chemtrail beleivers would participate in "spraying poison to depopulate earth".
Suspending critical thinking and substituting an emotional fear-based paranoia (possibly rooted in fear of authority figures learned in childhood in a disciplinarian/religious household) does not cause people to suspend their sense of morality too.
Many of the believers are "end times Christians" even.

I've communicated with these people a lot and I have not seen anything like what this study claims.

Also, due to the eye-witness police and firefighter accounts of bombs going off and the known behavior of steel framed structures in fires, the 2700 architects and engineers at ae911 truth believe that World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.
The idea that they believe this because they would have participated is beyond ridiculous.

I don't believe that JFK was assassinated for wanting to get the U.S out of Vietnam or end the Federal Reserve because I would have participated in the conspiracy theory.
The same goes for knowing that the Gulf Of Tonkin incident that kicked off Vietnam never happened.

Following the facts that demonstrate that a "conspiracy theory" is highly likely - or did happen- does not mean that a person would drop all their ethics and would have been willing to take part in it simply because the evidence lead them to a conclusion that just happens to be branded as "a conspiracy theory".

I think this study has no basis in reality.

Just an opinion based on my observations...
Fire away! ;)
 
Even as disconnected as they are from the facts of reality, none of the chemtrail beleivers would participate in "spraying poison to depopulate earth".
But they would support retaliatory violence against those they suspect of being involved even though the evidence is non-existent. (see the 'advocating violence' and 'death to all chemtrail pilots' threads)
Many of the believers are "end times Christians" even.
Is that supposed to mean they have higher ethics? End times christians tend to be highly vindictive types.
 
But they would support retaliatory violence against those they suspect of being involved even though the evidence is non-existent. (see the 'advocating violence' and 'death to all chemtrail pilots' threads)
The study doesn't only say, "Willingness to do conspire to do terrible things," it also says, "willingness to conspire."

To that, I'd submit the massive number of outright fabricated claims (not misinterpreted or cherry picked, but actual, intentional, effort-added lies) we deal with on this site regularly, like the fake infrared chemtrail pictures.

We regularly see these fakes coming from multiple sources using the same techniques. The individuals creating them cannot possibly believe they are doing anything except lying, but the frequently coordinated releases and shared techniques suggests collaboration outside of the public forums debunkers monitor. That is, conspiracy.

A conspiracy doesn't need to be something great or terrible to still be a conspiracy.


That doesn't sound like what the study was looking for, but... Well, the study sounds pretty strangely conceived to me. It might have found a grain of truth, but perhaps more in the way of a blind squirrel finding a nut.
 
Last edited:
But they would support retaliatory violence against those they suspect of being involved even though the evidence is non-existent. (see the 'advocating violence' and 'death to all chemtrail pilots' threads)

That's because in their paranoid delusional fictional reality there is not a lack of evidence FOR THEM...
Their interpretation of reality is that they are being poisoned and killed off. Period.
The facts have never had any bearing on their interpretation of the world or how they apply their "ethics" to it.


Is that supposed to mean they have higher ethics? End times christians tend to be highly vindictive types.

Well... hmmm... you make an excellent and accurate point - an observation that I too have made of "Christians" on you tube and other internet forums.

So, yes, you are right about this since we are discussing behavior of "Christians" observed on the internet...
Most of them who post anything on the internet FAIL to follow Jesus' command to love others and not judge others, but are instead posting solely to try to boost their unbelievably low self-esteem (which comes from being raised religious) by either putting others down in order to feel "smarter" or "Holier".
Or posting to "spread the gospel to the lost" to create the pseudo self-esteem that Nathaniel Branden writes about in "Honoring the Self".

EDIT: It occurs to me that the people who are indoctrinated/brainwashed by parents into the FEAR aspect of Christianity and have their self-esteem destroyed ("hopeless sinners"- even as an innocent 7 year old) embrace and cling to the fear aspects of Christianity as opposed to the love aspects that Jesus actually talked about.

Armageddon and the rapture also serve as a sick kind of "hope" for an effortless escape from their life that they hate because they have failed to take action to build it... after all, they are supposed to "be content" (a great way to surpress the serfs in the Roman Empire) and wait for God to do all the work- or rapture them and save them from: "chemtrails"/the government/hologram planes/UN/NWO/Illuminati/Satan and all us government-paid cia disinformation agents/shills/trolls. ;)

But who will save us from Dane Wigington?!
 
Last edited:
I think the study has a point. A Lot of CT believers assume "The Government" or "The Elite" are horrendously abusing the power they have, lying cheating and manipulating others because it is what they themselves would do and in fact DO do, in whatever little world they have power.
manipulating videos to pretend they show what they don't, banning ANY opinion that doesn't align with the "official line", attempting to discredit anyone that dares try and disagree with them etc. We see this sort of thing all the time. just imagine if THESE people were the ones actually in charge of a country, or a multinational corporation.
 
I think the study has a point. A Lot of CT believers assume "The Government" or "The Elite" are horrendously abusing the power they have, lying cheating and manipulating others because it is what they themselves would do and in fact DO do, in whatever little world they have power.
manipulating videos to pretend they show what they don't, banning ANY opinion that doesn't align with the "official line", attempting to discredit anyone that dares try and disagree with them etc. We see this sort of thing all the time. just imagine if THESE people were the ones actually in charge of a country, or a multinational corporation.

I certainly see how and why you made that connection, but I don't think that they ban people because they are manipulative dictators. They ban people because they BELIEVE that anyone who disagrees with their "truth" is a "government agent".
It is a function of confirmation bias.

These behaviors _present_ (to us rational people living in reality) as manipulation, lying, cheating and being a power-hungry dictator, but my experience from years of trying to help these people on youtube indicates to me that these "censoring behaviors" are a function of using confirmation bias to otherize and cast out the enemy from their awareness/reality.
Religious cults do the exact same thing to shun unbelievers/heathen/evil people. They even go so far as to convince their followers that their family members who do not share their beliefs are evil in order to insulate them and prevent their loved ones getting through to them with reality to free them from the man-made cult (it's called "disfellowshipping" in one of these cults).

Confirmation presents itself as exactly what you have described.
But they aren't "power hungry manipulators", no, they are on " A righteous censoring of the lies of the evil ones and spreading the truth of chemtrails".
 
They can CALL it what they want, and justify it to themselves however they wish, but the "leaders" in the movements definitely enjoy being in the spotlight and having people look up to them as a glorious leader.
You will never hear , say Dane Wigington admit he is wrong, even when he knows it, because he has too much face, power and influence to lose, not to mention donation money.
 
But they aren't "power hungry manipulators", no, they are on " A righteous censoring
well unless Lex Luther has sprung to life from the pages of a comic book, i doubt the "manipulative, power hungry elite" consider themselves "power hungry manipulators" either.

For example, most high paid CEOs consider their work nobel as they are running/ saving the company and providing jobs/putting food on the table for families.
 
Right, but I think the difference between a CEO and a believer is significant.
That significant difference is that most high paid CEOs are not mentally ill with an emotional paranoid delusion and fear of fictional events which have caused them to be hyper-vigilant for "any potential threats to their life".
Also, a CEO's life purpose is not to URGENTLY spread the word to as many people as possible in order to expose this mortal threat to all of mankind.

In my comments I was not referring to the psychology of the handful of big-headed leaders (as you are), I was describing ALL the followers (including those who are so in fear of their imminent death that they have started facebook pages)...
I don't believe that the motivation of these paranoid delusional people is power and control.
If I did believe that was the case... that might mean that I had forgotten that these people are literally mentally ill and are not functioning in rational logical ways that make sense to those of us who are not experiencing a paranoid delusion and break from reality. Perhaps you are judging them too rationally (as if they are in some way rational or as if they are using the logical portion of their brains- which they are not).
This is a movement powered by emotion, not logic.
If it were powered by logic it would have self-destructed and disappeared long ago after it debunked itself. ;)
 
I cannot cite passages (for copyright reasons) but I'd suggest a book I recently came across...

"The Invention of Religion".

Gist, in just the first fifteen pages invokes double-blind studies, with animals AND humans....that show similar traits towards "superstitious" behaviours, when attempting to get a "reward".

Very fascinating, indeed......
Two things:

1st, I think the "Fair Use" laws pretty clearly protect modestly sized passages for commentary purposes...
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html

2nd, that reminded me that I just finished Sam Harris' The End of Faith, which I'm guessing some in here
have already read. Harris' general thesis could be summed up as: It's absurd that so much of our society
follows religious dogma written by ignorant men from so long ago, men whose understanding of the world
would be laughable--even to a child--these days...yet millions feel bound to their "wisdom" anyway...
he adds that our desire to be so deferent to everyone's religious beliefs makes society irrational,
and will potentially destroy us, as fanaticism and ability to produce WMD increase. The book is a decade old...
a decade before ISIS became a household name...but current events advance his thesis. It's a thought-provoking book,
because he pulls no punches about the danger of looking the other way, as if religions don't routinely
produce suicidal fanatics.
 
Last edited:
1st, I think the "Fair Use" laws pretty clearly protect modestly sized passages for commentary purposes...

Yeah, you may be correct. Thing is, I would have to type out a page, or a passage from a page...by referring TO the actual book. (there is no copy/paste feature, so convenient usually...).

As far as "Fair Use"? I have mentioned the book title. I explained (albeit in a very casual way) the basic premise, others who wish to purchase the (rather inexpensive) book may then contribute...(of course, in another thread topic).
 
I wish to add that, without citing any specific copyrighted passage from a book that I mentioned above (AND attempting to stay on-topic in this thread)....

.....the "psychology" of CT beliefs tend to mirror the psychology of religious beliefs.

I can only "hint" here, in this thread. BUT if one takes time to read the book mentioned above, much will become clear.
 
2nd, that reminded me that I just finished Sam Harris' The End of Faith, which I'm guessing some in here
have already read. Harris' general thesis could be summed up as: It's absurd that so much of our society
follows religious dogma written by ignorant men from so long ago, men whose understanding of the world
would be laughable--even to a child--these days...yet millions feel bound to their "wisdom" anyway...
he adds that our desire to be so deferent to everyone's religious beliefs makes society irrational,
and will potentially destroy us, as fanaticism and ability to produce WMD increase. The book is a decade old...
a decade before ISIS became a household name...but current events advance his thesis. It's a thought-provoking book,
because he pulls no punches about the danger of looking the other way, as if religions don't routinely
produce suicidal fanatics.


This ^^^ required a repeat....for future generations, just in case it might be lost, somewhere. We NEED to repeat such wisdom, however and WHENever we can!!!
 
.....the "psychology" of CT beliefs tend to mirror the psychology of religious beliefs.

Sometimes I think conspiracy IS a new religion. It has it's prophets (Icke, Jones, etc), it's gods (Ickes benign aliens he gets his telepathic messages from for example) its demons (NWO, CIA, Alien lizard men, etc) Its scriptures which tell a 'divine' truth (how many books have Icke and co penned over the years?), the inter sect fighting (Alex Jones vs Before It's News etc), it's devote and fanatical believers who refuse to accept any knowledge that isn't from a CT source, its heathen unbelievers (us lot), the masses in need of conversion (the 'sheeple') and in extreme cases even offers a hope of salvation (Ickes 'karmic evolution' for example).

All that says 'religion' to me. Not that the CT crowd see it that way.
 
All that says 'religion' to me. Not that the CT crowd see it that way.
Noone sees it that way. We, as a society - yes even atheists- "believe" certain things based purely on "opinion" or "feel good ideas" (ie. we dont like to hurt peoples feelings) that are not at all based in FACT. or are 'opinons' based on 'facts' taken out of context.

These ideas also have their 'apostles' and books and blind followers as well.
 
Sometimes I think conspiracy IS a new religion. It has it's prophets (Icke, Jones, etc), it's gods (Ickes benign aliens he gets his telepathic messages from for example) its demons (NWO, CIA, Alien lizard men, etc) Its scriptures which tell a 'divine' truth (how many books have Icke and co penned over the years?), the inter sect fighting (Alex Jones vs Before It's News etc), it's devote and fanatical believers who refuse to accept any knowledge that isn't from a CT source, its heathen unbelievers (us lot), the masses in need of conversion (the 'sheeple') and in extreme cases even offers a hope of salvation (Ickes 'karmic evolution' for example).

All that says 'religion' to me. Not that the CT crowd see it that way.
As someone who was labelled a "fact-based organism" as a teen, and has probably been a tad too logical since,
I see value in your analogy. The enlightened v. unenlightened...the good v. evil...the virtually automatic acceptance of info from some sources and rejection from others...
the psychological comfort of being one of the chosen ones, in the know...
the often dogmatic refusal to to consider that you might not be right...
the notion that others should do things to conform to beliefs you have that can not
be rationally explained...


That said, I'm still not putting any wafer in my mouth that someone claims is the body of Alex Jones.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes I think conspiracy IS a new religion.

All that says 'religion' to me. Not that the CT crowd see it that way.

Sometimes I think conspiracy IS a new religion.

Yup! Yup!....and Yup!!! (I realise two are repeats....this is for "emphasis").

Since it is a "psychology" thread title, I will add a few more pence....not being (of course) a qualified psychologist, this is merely an observation as a human being who observes other human beings.

The correlation of a "religious view" and a "CT", or "Conspiracy Theory" view of events seem to be quite similar.

What many of us have seen (when able to 'step out' and away from a sort of "Group-Think") is that in religions, AND in 'CT's....there can be seen "splintering" (as I will call it) as "factions" tend to 'calve-off' (this is an ice-berg reference). I am using too many analogies in one short post, sorry.

This form of communication (the "blog", so to speak) has limitations. But, we attempt to do our best, within its defined parameters...n'est pas?
 
The correlation of a "religious view" and a "CT", or "Conspiracy Theory" view of events seem to be quite similar.
religious views have nothing to do with CT views, except for maybe extremists and fundamentalists.

The vast majority of religious view holders understand the stories are stories, allegories. even the few priests i have spoken to, say they are stories... like fables.

CTs believe everything is TRUE. not stories.

And again, even your atheist "beliefs" are largely based on opinion, not fact. for example you (atheists) decide what is moral and what is not, good vs bad, the exact same way 'religion' does. There's no difference, even if you want to pretend there is.

Atheists "judge" people just as much as the "bible" (for example) does. And atheists have their own form of "group think" too.

Either way spiritual and moral matters have nothing to do with Conspiracy theories. Maybe in the OLD days when Churches WERE the political leaders, but that is not the case today.
 
I can write more, but may be deemed "Off-Topic". Other animals (not just Humans) in structured tests exhibited signs of a "religious" or more properly a "ritual" belief.

More a 'superstition' actually, as we would term it.

It is "response/reward" basically....when SOMEONE ELSE is controlling the experiment, outside and away from the view of the participant.

The "ritual" that I referred to? Just one....a pigeon in one experiment happened to receive food pellets when she "happened" to brush one wing on the floor....SO??? She, when hungry, brushed her wing on the floor....THING is, the machine that dispensed the food was on a TIMER!!!

This means that the pigeon DID NOT KNOW about any sense of a "timer"....but equated the brushing of her wing with the release of the food...HENCE!!! She (this one individual) NOW thinks that brushing one wing causes food to "magically" appear.

Guess what? "IF" that pigeon had the ability of language, then SHE would communicate that MISTAKEN "belief" to all of her friends, and then THEY would spread it, via language, throughout the entire species....(getting it, yet...)

WE are just animals....we Humans. WE are prone to the same mistaken beliefs.

Nevertheless....this set up a "positive reinforcement" mind-game.....even in this brain of a pigeon!!

IMAGINE how Humans can use this to "control" other Humans......'mind-game'.......
 
Last edited:
No....we do not.

Atheists tend to stay focused on reality, and not be distracted by superstitions.
Look at the comments on a few youtube videos occasionally. You can find some VERY judgemental Atheists. It;s not really possible to lump people together based on religious beliefs (or lack of). Funnily enough an American once called my dad (fairly religious, Eucharistic Minister in a catholic church for example) as possibly the most non judgemental person he;d ever met. My dad took it as a compliment but the supposedly religious person who made the comment certainly didn't mean it as one.
 
The CT community is quite varied, there are actual believers as well as others that take advantage of the credulity of those believers for monetary gain or for self aggrandizement or perhaps other reasons. They are professional bullshitters in my humble opinion and this article offers a look at their mindset and methodology which is exhibited by Conspiracy Cultists time and again. The piece references the books 'On Truth' and 'On Bullshit' by:

Harry Gordon Frankfurt (born May 29, 1929) is an American philosopher. He is professor emeritus of philosophy at Princeton University and has previously taught at Yale University and Rockefeller University.
Content from External Source
Link to article/blog



The Essence of Bullshitting
June 9, 2011 — wildbillhaltom
In On Truth Harry G. Frankfurt summarizes his immediately previous work, On Bullshit, as follows:

… My claim was that bullshitters, although they represent themselves as being engaged simply in conveying information, are not engaged in that enterprise at all. Instead, and most essentially, they are fakers and phonies who are attempting by what they say to manipulate the opinions and the attitudes of those to whom they speak. What they care about primarily, therefore, is whether what they say is effective in accomplishing this manipulation. Correspondingly, they are more or less indifferent to whether what they say is true or whether it is false.

Professor Frankfurt imparts the core of bullshit and bullshitting: primary or exclusive concern for management of responses [that is, acts] from and by members of the audience rather than attention to internal states of members of audiences.

Bullshitters must be indifferent to truth and falsity. [Academic bullshitters usually learn various rhetorics and rationalizations to erode or eliminate distinctions between true and false; if true and false are but different costumes that the pursuit of interest or advantage may don, then the academic bullshitter dramatizes his or her own sophistication by ignoring truth, non-truth, and all of the gradients between appearance and actuality.]

Bullshitters may be indifferent even to plausibility and implausibility or to credibility or its absence. If a bullshitter, for example, is running for office and induces voters to vote for her or him, what voters think of her or him may matter little or nothing to the bullshitter and especially to the bullshitter’s handlers. What actual or potential contributors think or feel, by contrast, may matter greatly to the bullshitting candidate if contributions may depend on such thinking or feeling. If contributors become concerned, the bullshitter or the bullshitter’s staff must co-opt contributors, perhaps via private audiences in which the bullshitter bullshits contributors or supporters by exposing the bullshitter’s everyday, public blather and providing the “inside story.” [This is “different bullshit/same day” as opposed to “same old shit/different day.”

We err if we presume that every bullshitter expects to be believed or longs to be credible. What the audience thinks or how the audience feels may matter to the bullshit artist — but may not. For some seduction to “work,” the seduced need merely to act as if the seduced believed the seducer. When girls in my social group expressed surprise to find a nightie and a toothbrush [and condoms] in their purses, they did so both to fend off a bad reputation [that is, a reputation for behaving like boys] and to protect the ongoing performance of whatever Don Juan happened to be standing near the bar at closing time.

Some bullshitters are working a longer con. These bullshitters may need or want to protect the bullshit. By contrast, bullshitters working on the short con may settle for acquiescence without belief. Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, supplied his supporters with plausible deniability with sufficient staying power to get Justice Thomas confirmed and sworn in. That many of the denials of the justice’s supporters barely outlasted the hearings or the Senate vote did not matter for the justice’s ascending the Supreme Court. I do not know whether Justice Thomas is indifferent to his reputation after the swearing in. I do know that the longer con — that Clarence Thomas was utterly innocent of Anita Hill’s allegations — became less tenable over time. However, that time has passed, for many Americans have joined the polity in the last 20 years and many other Americans no longer recall who Anita Hill was. Hence, Justice Thomas may be relying on a “curvilinear” con. Over the short run and over the long run, Justice Thomas’s bullshit may “work” even if it did not “work” over intermediate runs.

To maintain bipartisan balance, let me rehearse the same sorts of considerations for William Jefferson Clinton. Over multiple short runs, President Clinton bullshitted his way past Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and other affairs or assaults. Over intermediate runs, President Clinton paid some settlements and suffered some indignities. Over the longer run — we are > 10 years past his presidency — the consequences of President Clinton’s bullshitting should decrease until even the naif must admit that bullshitting profited “Slick Willy” both in the “here and now” of the 1990s and in the long haul of his post-presidency.

Professor Frankfurt’s examination of bullshit, then, teaches us anew the importance of Jacques Ellul’s insight about orthopraxy and orthodoxy. Many propagandists in centuries past, Ellul wrote, pursued orthodoxy. They strove to induce correct beliefs and attitudes and hoped that getting minds right would lead to better living and more moral conduct. 20th century propagandists, Ellul argued, cared less about minds, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes. Modern propagandists pursued “right actions,” orthopraxy. Induce targets to behave as you would have them behave. If you are advertising, induce consumers to buy what you are hawking — whatever they may think of it. If you are electioneering, induce voters to vote for your candidate or to stay home — whatever their reasoning or lack thereof. If you are professing, induce students to evaluate you favorably — whatever they learn, fail to learn, or learn that is not true.

In sum, bullshitters may succeed to the extent that they induce audiences not to call bullshit explicitly over whatever duration interests the bullshitter. If long-term credibility interests a bullshitter, the bullshitter must suit the bullshit to enduring attitudes and opinions and must anticipate and fend off — forefend [sic] — revelations and contradictions. If the bullshitter aims merely to escape a gaffe, even immediate plausibility may not matter much.

Content from External Source
 
Here is an example of the lengths that conspiracy promoters have gone to, in order to propagate their BS:

Link



Conspiracy theorists create their own reality on social media

  1. Links to an authentic-looking BBC News article circulated for a while on social media Monday with the headline “Doubts raised over authenticity of Charlie Hebdo footage.”

    However, the article and the embedded YouTube video, which also included a BBC News logo and theme, were fake.

  2. [Broken External Image]:[URL]http://i.embed.ly/1/display/resize?key=1e6a1a1efdb011df84894040444cdc60&url=http%3A%2F%2Fg.etfv.co%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.pressgazette.co.uk
    PRESSGAZETTE[/URL]
    ·
    2 MONTHS AGO


  3. Fake BBC News website set up to carry Charlie Hebdo attack conspiracy theories
    A realistic-looking fake BBC News website has been set up carrying conspiracy theories about the Charlie Hebdo massacre. A story, headlined: "Doubts raised over Charlie Hebo footage", appears on the website domain bbc-news.co.uk. The rest of the BBC website furniture on the page looks genuine and the links to other BBC content work.
    [Broken External Image]:[URL]http://i.embed.ly/1/display/resize?key=1e6a1a1efdb011df84894040444cdc60&url=http%3A%2F%2Fg.etfv.co%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.pressgazette.co.uk
    PRESSGAZETTE[/URL]


  4. The page looked very much as though it were part of the BBC News website, with working links to other sections and related stories, but it was hosted on bbc-news.co.uk, which is not an official BBC address.

    The site has since been taken down.

    The apparent goal of the elaborate ruse was to advance the conspiracy theory that the shootings at Charlie Hebdo in Paris last week had been staged by a powerful organization for shadowy, unknown purposes.

    This kind of conspiratorial thinking has become more and more prevalent in the Western world since the beginning of the 20th century, says Martha Lee, a political science professor at the University of Windsor and author of Conspiracy Rising.

    “In North America, we tend to see conspiracy theories that are not just about single events but that link a number of particular events in a larger conspiratorial framework,” she said.

    People who believe in such theories, Lee says, are seeking a purpose or rationale for the disturbing events that occur in a changing world. Conspiracy theories often crop up around deadly attacks that are hard to explain, such as the Ottawa shooting in October, the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012 and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

    “It is terrifying to live in our modern world. You never know what’s going to happen. Conspiracy theories provide a rationale for what does happen. They very often tell us that nothing is what it seems and everything is connected,” she said.

    It seems counterintuitive, but attributing a rationale — even one that involves a global conspiracy — is in some way comforting, Lee said.

    “There’s a double-edged sword there. It’s a terrifying picture in one way, to think about someone or something orchestrating these events. On the other hand, [people are] finding security in that kind of belief,” she said.

    The attacks of 9/11 coincided with the rise of blogs, and with that came an ease of online publication that was a boon to conspiracy theorists.

    “The internet, and social media in particular, of course, provide everyone with as much information as they could possibly ever read in their lifetime,” she said. “Amongst this universe of information, it’s very hard to find trusted sources.”

    On social media, people tend to like and follow other people who think like they do.

    This is why people who are likely to believe that, say, the Illuminaticontrols governments, banks and media to its own end, tend to find each other.

    “People are left on their own — or through the connections of social media, amongst groups of like believers — to latch on to these ideas that may not bear any resemblance to reality,” Lee said.

    YouTube in particular seems to be popular among conspiracy theorists because hunting for anomalies in videos of news events has been a pastime of theirs since the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination.

    “Like social media in general, YouTube provides a forum for anyone who has a particular gripe against the government or against a particular group to spread their ideology far and wide,” she said.

    The medium of online video is attractive to conspiracy believers for other reasons, too.

    “The fact that you can capture things in video that may be more compelling than a lengthy argument in an academic journal article also speaks volumes. You can see something and assume that what you’re seeing is the truth,” said Lee.
Content from External Source
 
(I'm reposting the general part of my moved post back here because it belongs here.)

I was wondering whether the psychology of conspiracy belief is different for the opinion leaders who originate the beliefs and start movements, and for their followers, i.e. those who get under the influence of these leaders and join the movements.

Example: Dane Wigington as opinion leader, starter of an "anti-geoengineering" movement, versus those people who believe him and get under his influence.

For Dane, his beliefs probably serve a positive function. It gives meaning to his life, he can feel important, the savior of mankind, etc. Also, he can explain his failures by blaming them on the "ruling elites", etc. Overall, he seems to rather enjoy being in his role. He is being invited to give talks, interviews, etc. His life is driven by his anti-geoengineering activism. So that's good for him. The conspiracy belief has made his life better overall.

However, his followers may be a different story. Reading the comments on geoengineeringwatch.org, I often see comments from people who are emotionally distressed due to the incredible amount of scaremongering produced by Dane every day. They are filled with anger and are depressed, some of them even cry (someone wrote the other day: "I'm in a fit of tears"). Their beliefs have a huge negative impact on their lives. They often get isolated from their families, coworkers, and friends. The other day, I just read the story of a guy whose wife abandoned him because of his conspiracy beliefs.

Of course, there are some advantages of believing in a conspiracy even for the followers. But they pay a very high price for it.

In the end, the leaders inflict a lot of harm on their followers, making them angry and depressed, while the leaders themselves flourish. In a sense, the followers are victims of the leaders, not unlike in a destructive cult.
 
I think the leader/follower distinction can get a bit blurred. Sometimes it's more of a groupthink - the group has the idea that chemtrails are proven fact, and they believe it because so many other people in their peer group believe it. Even the promoters like Dane still need this higher authority of the group (including other promoters) to validate their beliefs. Dane is not just making things up, he's repeating things that arose elsewhere in the group (like the high-bypass myth). And many followers proselytize at a smaller level.
 
Indeed, the leader/follower distinction is not that sharp. There are various levels of involvement.
There are also smaller leaders who are not as known as Dane but are still relatively known. They sometimes appear in public, and seem to enjoy what they do. I would say conspiracy belief is more beneficial than detrimental to them.
But then there are those who are really only followers, and they mostly suffer and ruin their lives.
 
Here is an example of the lengths that conspiracy promoters have gone to, in order to propagate their BS:

Link



Conspiracy theorists create their own reality on social media

  1. Links to an authentic-looking BBC News article circulated for a while on social media Monday with the headline “Doubts raised over authenticity of Charlie Hebdo footage.”

    However, the article and the embedded YouTube video, which also included a BBC News logo and theme, were fake.

  2. [Broken External Image]:http://i.embed.ly/1/display/resize?key=1e6a1a1efdb011df84894040444cdc60&url=http://g.etfv.co/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk
    PRESSGAZETTE
    ·
    2 MONTHS AGO


  3. Fake BBC News website set up to carry Charlie Hebdo attack conspiracy theories
    A realistic-looking fake BBC News website has been set up carrying conspiracy theories about the Charlie Hebdo massacre. A story, headlined: "Doubts raised over Charlie Hebo footage", appears on the website domain bbc-news.co.uk. The rest of the BBC website furniture on the page looks genuine and the links to other BBC content work.
    [Broken External Image]:http://i.embed.ly/1/display/resize?key=1e6a1a1efdb011df84894040444cdc60&url=http://g.etfv.co/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk
    PRESSGAZETTE

  4. The page looked very much as though it were part of the BBC News website, with working links to other sections and related stories, but it was hosted on bbc-news.co.uk, which is not an official BBC address.
Content from External Source
Hey, sometimes you have to lie--a lot!--to get "the truth" out... :cool:
 
I think the leader/follower distinction can get a bit blurred. Sometimes it's more of a groupthink - the group has the idea that chemtrails are proven fact, and they believe it because so many other people in their peer group believe it. Even the promoters like Dane still need this higher authority of the group (including other promoters) to validate their beliefs. Dane is not just making things up, he's repeating things that arose elsewhere in the group (like the high-bypass myth). And many followers proselytize at a smaller level.

I agree. Wigington actually runs focus groups within geoengineeringwatch.org to discuss issues and offer suggestions for new ideas for the website. However, these groups are comprised of people who subscribe to his site. They have been identified as true believers. In a sense, it is possible to cherry pick people as well as facts to influence group think.
 
Here is an example of the lengths that conspiracy promoters have gone to, in order to propagate their BS:

Link



Conspiracy theorists create their own reality on social media

  1. Links to an authentic-looking BBC News article circulated for a while on social media Monday with the headline “Doubts raised over authenticity of Charlie Hebdo footage.”

    However, the article and the embedded YouTube video, which also included a BBC News logo and theme, were fake.

Content from External Source

See also the regular use of a (real, but totally unrelated) BBC News screenshot with the caption "BREAKING NEWS" on Facebook to promote "global marches" etc:

upload_2015-5-12_12-15-25.png

Presumably the idea is to lend legitimacy to the story underneath, despite the fact that there is no link at all between the screenshot and the story.
 
I think this one bit is the prime mover of most CT belief.
I would agree with that statement. I would also add, people don't like to be outliers...they like to feel comfortable in their beliefs. That said, I think most CT'ers seek to have their ignorant (not used as a pejorative) based beliefs validated. Other CT'ers do this in spades.
 
Back
Top