speculative visionscience fiction and fantasy

  Ramblings of a Damaged Mind
The GNDN of Blogdom.  
 
USER_AVATAR
Qray
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Down in Cognito
Blog: View Blog (49)
 
Archives
- February 2013
Freezin' For A Reason.
   Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:00 pm
You will be remembered, Marco.
   Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:25 am

+ January 2012
+ November 2011
+ February 2011
+ December 2010
+ November 2010
+ January 2010
+ November 2009
+ October 2009
+ August 2009
+ May 2009
+ March 2009
+ February 2009
+ January 2009
+ December 2008
+ November 2008
+ October 2008
+ September 2008
+ August 2008
Friends
  • Friends Online
    No Friends Online

    Friends Offline
 
Search Blogs

 
 

A Profile.

Permanent Linkby Qray on Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:19 am

10 Characteristics of Conspiracy Theorists

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain "stock" phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

Conspiracy Theory Guide.

1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.

5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.

6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.

7. Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.

9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.

10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.

11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.

12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'
Last edited by Qray on Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm going to die the way I've lived...poor, screaming, and naked.
 5 Comments Viewed 10150 times
 
  Comments  
 

Re: A Profile.

Permanent Linkby Dark Knight on Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:02 pm

There is the other-side to consider:

People read a article by someone that claims the conspiracy is a hoax. All people having read counter claim, then label it a hoax. At which point there is a counter claim, however people continue to claim it is a hoax. Some may go as far as to tell the persons to drop it, they want to hear no more about it. At which point the people who do have more information don’t release that information, because of the negative feed back, and they do drop it.

However the people who labelled it a hoax, don’t drop it, and keep it up, trying to reinforce their point it is a hoax. Even labelling the people as gullible for thinking that it is not a hoax.
User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
 
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Blog: View Blog (7)
 
 

Re: A Profile.

Permanent Linkby Qray on Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:53 am

No. The one's I referred to as gullible are the types of people that conspiracists target for their hoaxes. They're the only ones who fall for the easy ploys that the conspiracists use (as is outlined in the main article.)

That is also why conspiracists have such a difficult time here at SV. This community has very few gullible people in it.

A con artist would have a better chance at a place where people don't actually research the facts or have a good deal of common sense.
I'm going to die the way I've lived...poor, screaming, and naked.
USER_AVATAR
Qray
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Down in Cognito
Blog: View Blog (49)
 
 

Re: A Profile.

Permanent Linkby Dark Knight on Thu Dec 25, 2008 8:15 pm

I thought I had deleted that comment? must have been the change over or something? oh well, yea I can see you point.
User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
 
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Blog: View Blog (7)
 
 

Re: A Profile.

Permanent Linkby fanuilh on Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:36 am

Excellent list, Q. Very appropriate, also. Seemed to have struck a nerve as well. Heh. ™
"Never look at the trombones, it only enourages them." -- Richard Strauss
User avatar
fanuilh
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)
 
 

Re: A Profile.

Permanent Linkby Qray on Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:15 pm

Thanks, fan. I ran across the two lists online and was struck by how accurate it portrayed the posting style of some people.

I think an additional characteristic can be applied to the Conspiracy Theorists which plays off of the second characteristic of Relentlessness. That being that even after the "conspiracy" has been shown to be nothing more than a hoax, they maintain that by showing the proof that it's a hoax, keeps other people from coming forward with new evidence that it's not a hoax.

In other words, they begin to complain because essentially their trolling has been called out. Or that they can no longer sucker people into believing their hoax. They play the part of the victom, when in fact they're the predator, which is a classic trait of a troll and a hate monger.
I'm going to die the way I've lived...poor, screaming, and naked.
USER_AVATAR
Qray
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Down in Cognito
Blog: View Blog (49)
 

Who is online

Registered users: No registered users

cron