close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Explaining Conspiracy Theories

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by RimfireMan, May 1, 2013.

  1. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    24,924
    Likes Received:
    2,849
    Location:
    CO & Baden –Württemberg
    Interesting.

    ...."fundamental attribution error”: the tendency to overestimate the actions of others as being intentional rather than the product of (random) situational circumstances.
     

  2. Bruce M

    Bruce M

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    44,058
    Likes Received:
    16,409
    Location:
    S FL
    Thanks The article was good reading.
     
  3. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    24,924
    Likes Received:
    2,849
    Location:
    CO & Baden –Württemberg
    There is something that is very much in the background of this article.

    "A conspiracy theory is usually defined as an attempt to explain the ultimate cause of an important societal event as part of some sinister plot conjured up by a secret alliance of powerful individuals and organizations."

    I see this many times on GT that people accuse others of wearing the tin foil hat, but never look in the mirror.

    The people who "wear tin foil hats" are always looking at the govt as the organization conjuring up the sinister plot. The govt labels them as "kooks" but then turns right around and labels groups (i.e. sovereign citizens) as part of a dangerous organization conjuring up sinister plots.

    The justification for the govt is "well we had a few incidents over the last 20 years" with them. However, when the same justification is given by the tin foil hat wearers that there have been incidents by the govt, they are dismissed as nut because these were simply mistakes or happen very seldom.

    And my proof of that people never look in the mirror will be the posts that follow where GTers will be pointing out that one side is kooks and the other is righteous.
     
  4. Dennis in MA

    Dennis in MA Get off my lawn

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2001
    Messages:
    42,700
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    Location:
    Taunton, MA
    Wait. MMGW isn't a hoax??? We now have PROOF that Man has caused this??? Why didn't anyone tell me?
     
  5. Cybercowboy

    Cybercowboy Support the 2nd

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,412
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    SW Missouri
    Some conspiracy theories are harmless and some are not. For instance, people who believe that the moon landings were a NASA hoax are pretty much harmless (and laughable) but those who believe that the US Government/Mossad faked 9/11 are certainly not harmless little conspiracy fuzzballs. Take note that the Boston bombers were adherents of that particular conspiracy theory.
     
  6. Cybercowboy

    Cybercowboy Support the 2nd

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,412
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    SW Missouri
    It was because of the way Scientific American treated the whole MMGW issue, especially the way they treated skeptics, that I gave up my subscription of over 20 years a couple of years ago.
     
  7. MaxxAction

    MaxxAction

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    4,002
    Likes Received:
    1,351
    Location:
    TN
    Looks to me like Scientific Americans' version of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

    It was stated in a policy recommendation paper by Obama's friend and former regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein that the best way to keep conspiracy theories in the realm of theory is to discredit the conspiracy theorist. He even went as far as recommending that governemtn might suspend people's right to speak of such things, and tax them or fine them if they do.

    II. Governmental Responses


    What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses: (1)Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5 Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.


    However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).

    The full paper can be found here:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585