New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’
sane; government dupes crazy, hostile
 |
| Learn more about the King Arthur Conspiracy |
Recent studies by psychologists and
social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to
mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists”
appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of
contested events.
The most recent study was published on
July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the
University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social
psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy
theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy
theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news
websites.
The authors were surprised to discover
that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist
comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments
collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as
conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news
articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as
9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two
to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are
expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the
anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered
minority.
Perhaps because their supposedly
mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the
anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The
research… showed that people who favoured the official account of
9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their
rivals.”
Additionally, it turned out that the
anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically
attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them,
their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19
Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off
the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in
a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true. The so-called
conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory
that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think
9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a
specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”
In short, the new study by Wood and
Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy
theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe
theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official
account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.
Additionally, the study found that
so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing
the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than
anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to
not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy
theorists.”
Both of these findings are amplified in
the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist
Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of
Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like
being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and
put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people
questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to
popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy
belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited,
unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda
initiatives of all time.”
In other words, people who use the
terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an
insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed,
historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK
assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and
the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all
domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic
operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.
DeHaven-Smith also explains why those
who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss
historical context. He points out that a very large number of
conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear
to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state
crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between
the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for
presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to
DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy
assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to
have been aspects of the same larger crime.
Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the
University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy
theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an
article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that
anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such
apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their
inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing
belief.
In the same issue of ABS, University of
Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are
typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” – that is, they
seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while
using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory”
label) to avoid conflicting information.
The extreme irrationality of those who
attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by
Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State
University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous
Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of
Exclusion,” they wrote:
“If I call you a conspiracy
theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a
conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I
would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you
from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”
But now, thanks to the internet, people
who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public
conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using
the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic
studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are
now more numerous – and more rational – than anti-conspiracy
ones.
No wonder the anti-conspiracy people
are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.
No comments:
Post a Comment