What Motivates Conspiracy Theorists?

Mudcat

Man of a Thousand Memes
Mudcat
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
6,474
Please forgive me in the likely event that this thread is started in the wrong sub forum, but really where else could I place it? This thread is started to determine what motivates conspiracy theorists.

I see a lot of suggestions that conspiracy theorists are either unhinged or inadequately educated and I wonder if these back handed dismissals might be unfair or at the least too shallow to actually address the problem. And I wonder if it might be a deeper, underlying sociological problem that cause conspiracy theorists to be. If that's the case might there be something that we, as a society, might be able to do about it?

I eagerly await everyone's thoughtful replies.
 
Mudcat said:
Please forgive me in the likely event that this thread is started in the wrong sub forum, but really where else could I place it? This thread is started to determine what motivates conspiracy theorists.

I see a lot of suggestions that conspiracy theorists are either unhinged or inadequately educated and I wonder if these back handed dismissals might be unfair or at the least too shallow to actually address the problem. And I wonder if it might be a deeper, underlying sociological problem that cause conspiracy theorists to be. If that's the case might there be something that we, as a society, might be able to do about it?

I eagerly await everyone's thoughtful replies.
Click to expand...

I think you first need to develop a taxonomy of Conspiracy Theorists. There are ones that come from the right, the left, out of nowhere, the teenage yootoobers, the old fart bilterberger obsessors, the neo-nazis, the Moorish Nationals, all sorts of types and flavors.
 
LSSBB said:
I think you first need to develop a taxonomy of Conspiracy Theorists. There are ones that come from the right, the left, out of nowhere, the teenage yootoobers, the old fart bilterberger obsessors, the neo-nazis, the Moorish Nationals, all sorts of types and flavors.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but I don't think it really addresses what the thread is about or the post you quoted.
 
Mudcat said:
I see a lot of suggestions that conspiracy theorists are either unhinged or inadequately educated and I wonder if these back handed dismissals might be unfair or at the least too shallow to actually address the problem. And I wonder if it might be a deeper, underlying sociological problem that cause conspiracy theorists to be. If that's the case might there be something that we, as a society, might be able to do about it?
Click to expand...

There is a recent study by Michael Wood and Karen Douglas at the University of Kent covering exactly this ground. It's called "What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories"

I can't give you a link because my post count isn't high enough yet, but if you google on the above terms you'll find the abstract as well as a pdf link to the full study. It's a good read in itself and of course gives plenty of references to previous studies of this subject.
 
Mudcat said:
Maybe so, but I don't think it really addresses what the thread is about or the post you quoted.
Click to expand...
I think LSSBB's comments are a start.

I don't think there is one reason why someone believes in CT's. "unhinged or inadequately educated" are but two possible reasons. I've seen some who are just anti-social, others and/or anti-authority enough to boldly question anything society or authority holds as true.

Others are blinded by their personal social and or political biases and simply are willing to swallow whatever fits into their ideology.

There are some who are simply trolls who will respond to anything rational with CT talk to get under peoples skin and create a reaction.

Any of the above could be otherwise quite smart and fully functional in other aspects of their lives. Of course there are some who are simple mentally ill.

That's just some examples.
 
Last edited:
While I think there are mental health issue at the root of a section of CTers I think the majority come from a place where the want to feel special. By being aware of the conspiracy theory they put themselves in a unique category of the enlightened or awakened. Their lives are probably unsatisfactory on some level and going online to "research" conspiracies gives them some fulfillment. Most of them just want to be in the know and get a pat on the back every time they throw out a new theory. Sometimes I don't think they even care if their theories are correct, they just want to be a part of it.

Go to clues, Icke, or ATS after any major, and often times minor, event and you will see two or three threads starting the conspiracy theorizing about said event. I think vultures often wait longer before feasting on their prey. That said you can also find a thread here discussing the idiocy of those theories almost as quickly!:D
 
ArchStanton said:
There is a recent study by Michael Wood and Karen Douglas at the University of Kent covering exactly this ground. It's called "What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories"

I can't give you a link because my post count isn't high enough yet, but if you google on the above terms you'll find the abstract as well as a pdf link to the full study. It's a good read in itself and of course gives plenty of references to previous studies of this subject.
Click to expand...

Are you talk about this? I've read the abstract and it seems interesting, but I have doubts about how it applies to this thread.
 
In general it's an ego thing; most CT believers are insignificant nobodies who use their supposed "special knowledge" to bolster their self image.
 
I think most of the posters have made the good point that there are obviously different routes to conspiracy thinking, and also different kinds of conspiracy thinkers.

I think conspiracy thinkers also can be divided into 'intrinsic' CT personality types who believe many conspiracy theories simultaneously (often contradictory) vs a 'misinformed' or 'motivated' CTheorist whose theories are subject-specific.

Michael Wood's studies (they actually did two studies - the second was studying the intense blowback to the first study) are right on topic for this, because the authors do make an attempt to differentiate between the two classes.

Here's a proposed taxonomy:
  • intrinsic
    • personality (there appears to be a 'consiprational' personality)
    • psychosis (intensity is transient, influenced by medication)
  • extrinsic
    • misinformed (evidence limited to specific sources)
    • motivated (seeks out evidence to mitigate cognitive dissonance)
 
blutoski said:
I think most of the posters have made the good point that there are obviously different routes to conspiracy thinking, and also different kinds of conspiracy thinkers.
Click to expand...

It's a bit like asking why people are religious. The answers will cover a very large range, and may depend on the religion and how the person arrived at that religion.
 
Mudcat said:
Are you talk about *link*? I've read the abstract and it seems interesting, but I have doubts about how it applies to this thread.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the one.

If you read the full PDF (free download, link on the right), not just the abstract, I would say it's highly relevant to the thread, as it explores their worldview, their motivations and what passes for their "thinking". The full paper also makes some useful references to some of the existing literature about conspiracy theorists' psychology.
 
Anything other than the official story would be a conspiracy theory...
But, here's a study about CT's...
Look for "New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, while government dupes are crazy and hostile" (I cannot add a link... to new here..)
--------------------
(text below)
New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, while government dupes are crazy and hostile

These four different university studies listed below reveal a lot about the psychology of official story ‘gatekeepers’ and how irrational and emotionally unstable they become when challenged with an alternative view…

****

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.

Edited by LashL: 
Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, cite a short quote and provide the source.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cloggy said:
Anything other than the official story would be a conspiracy theory...
But, here's a study about CT's...
Look for "New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, while government dupes are crazy and hostile" (I cannot add a link... to new here..)
--------------------
(text below)
New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, while government dupes are crazy and hostile

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.”
Click to expand...

That isn't what the study actually says, that is what the conspiracy sites you quote claim it says. Try reading the actual study, rather than what conspiraloons want in to say, I mean PressTV, Infowars, ATS, you consider these credible?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cloggy said:
Anything other than the official story would be a conspiracy theory...
Click to expand...

Lovely, except that there is no such thing as an official story. It only exists as a conspiracy theorist's attempt to poison the well.


cloggy said:
New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, while government dupes are crazy and hostile
Click to expand...

I didn't cast conspiracy theorists as insane (okay, not all of them) so I'd appreciate you'd show the same courtesy, okay?


cloggy said:
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.”
Click to expand...

Sniped for compliance of the membership agreement.

If you think the quoted bit is in favor of conspiracy theorist, boy are you in for a surprise.
 
cloggy said:
Anything other than the official story would be a conspiracy theory...
But, here's a study about CT's...
Look for "New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, while government dupes are crazy and hostile" (I cannot add a link... to new here..)
--------------------
(text below)
New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, while government dupes are crazy and hostile

...

KB/HSN
Click to expand...
Kevin is betting people did not read the study so he can spread lies and attack the government by the people - his government.

He fools people who did not read the study.
It is JREF, not JRAF. Education, where one reads the original study and discovers Kevin failed (plus the sources for the article of KB are not good ones; such as pressTV, BAD source. Education, Not Arcane, Education. Good luck.


What motivates conspiracy theorists?
Ignorance. ...
what Kevin Barrett needs for his nonsense to be swallowed and regurgitated without checking.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
That isn't what the study actually says, that is what the conspiracy sites you quote claim it says. Try reading the actual study, rather than what conspiraloons want in to say, I mean PressTV, Infowars, ATS, you consider these credible?
Click to expand...

At least they're consistent!:rolleyes:
 
cloggy said:
Anything other than the official story would be a conspiracy theory...
But, here's a study about CT's...
Look for "New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, while government dupes are crazy and hostile" (I cannot add a link... to new here..)
--------------------
(text below)
New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, while government dupes are crazy and hostile

These four different university studies listed below reveal a lot about the psychology of official story ‘gatekeepers’ and how irrational and emotionally unstable they become when challenged with an alternative view…

****

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.
Click to expand...

OP, you should ask this guy why, lololol.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom